Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill,

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

STANDING ORDERS.

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed. [No. 223.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (NAVAL STUDY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all Admiralty orders, battle orders, fighting instructions, signals, and official reports, bearing on the Battle of Jutland, including the Report of the Harper Committee on that action, have been made available for officer-students and their instructors at the Royal Naval Staff College; and whether similar details and information on other actions and strategical movements in the late War have also been made available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): Every care is taken to ensure that the Staff College is provided with the necessary official material for the naval study of the War. The Instructors also have access to original documents as necessary for their official duties. It is not considered desirable to enter into further detail on this matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer me Yes or No? Why cannot he inform the House whether this vital
information upon which the founding of our future policy has to be decided is available for the Naval Staff College?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think my hon. and gallant Friend cannot complain as to the courtesy of my replies. The matter is one of considerable delicacy, but what information is considered by the authority to be necessary for the Staff College will be imparted.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: I have never complained of discourtesy on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or any other Minister, but is he aware that it is absolutely necessary, quite apart from any feelings of delicacy on the part of the higher command at the Admiralty, that all this information should be available for this confidential work? Will he give the matter his careful consideration?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will reflect, he will see it is a matter of who is to decide what is necessary, and I think the Admiralty are in a position to decide.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend rot aware that battle orders, and the details set out in the question, are not matters of delicacy, but matters of fact, and why cannot they be issued to officers who require them for their mental training?

Sir J. CRAIG: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will have to be satisfied with the answer I have given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite

Commander Viscount CURZON: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the Report of the Battle of Jutland is published, he will arrange to include the charts which accompanied the Harper Report and which show the plotted positions of the various units during the different phases of the battle?

Sir J. CRAIG: The Jutland papers will, as promised by the Prime Minister, consist of the original reports and documents, without any official interpretation. It follows that Captain Harper's diagrams, which are in the nature of official interpretation of the evidence, will not be included. But there will be a large number of original track-charts published, including those drawn up by the British and German Commanders-in-Chief.

EXPENDITURE SINCE ARMISTICE.

Mr. SWAN: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the total expenditure on the Navy since the Armistice, exclusive of expenses of demobilisation, and showing separately, where possible, the expenditure on separate areas?

Sir J. CRAIG: I apprehend that the hon. Member's question is directed towards ascertaining the expenditure on the maintenance of the Navy after making allowance, not only for demobilisation expenses, but for the liquidation of charges relating to the war period between the date of the Armistice and the present time. On this basis, the figure may be taken, on a rough approximation, as £154,000,000. I regret that, as the accounts of expenditure are kept under Services and not under areas, it would not be possible to allocate the figure over separate areas without an expenditure of time and labour which, under the present conditions of pressure at the Admiralty, would not be justified.

PRISONERS IN TURKEY (COMPENSATION).

Major O'NEILL: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided to give compensation to naval officers who were prisoners of war in Turkey in respect of the high cost of living which they had to meet owing to depreciated currency and to the fact that they were given no rations or other assistance by the Turkish Government; and, if so, when such compensation will be paid?

Sir J. CRAIG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative As regards the second part, payments are being made with all possible speed.

HEALTH OF NAVY (STATISTICAL REPORT).

Commander BELLAIRS: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the need of economy and the cost of paper and printing whether he is aware that the Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy in 1914 was only issued on 27th October or a few weeks ago; whether he will consider what action shall be taken in regard to Reports for subsequent years; whether a brief Report covering the whole of the war years will meet the needs of the situation; and whether similar action can be taken in regard to any other belated Reports?

Sir J. CRAIG: The Admiralty are advised that a break in the continuity of the statistical information contained in this Report would to a great extent destroy the value of the whole series. The comparative statistics published in these Reports form a basis on which preventive measures and effects of treatment in important diseases are estimated. Hardly any economy will be effected by the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, but if the House will be satisfied not to have these Reports issued as Command Papers, they could be produced as Stationery Office Publications at a saving of about 20 per cent, on the present cost. The publication would then cost about £100 per annum.

H.M.S. "VIMIERA."

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the estimated value of the salvage work performed by the engineering and carpenter officers and men in saving H.M.S. "Vimiera" after she was in collision with H.M.S. "Delhi" and badly holed; and what awards have been made to the officers and men concerned?

Sir J. CRAIG: The work done by officers and ratings on H.M.S. "Vimiera" was not properly salvage, but consisted in effecting temporary repairs. Consequently the question of salvage awards does not arise.

FOREIGN SERVICE LEAVE.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of granting to men on foreign service 15 days' leave for each completed six months of foreign service so as to bring foreign service leave more into line with the amount of leave now given to men in ships in home waters?

Sir J. CRAIG: To increase the scale of foreign service leave as suggested would entail an addition of about 1,100 ratings to the present strength of the Royal Navy—at an estimated cost of £220,000 per annum. At present ratings receive ten days' drafting leave before proceeding on foreign service, and on return are granted seven days' leave for each completed six months of such service. As all ratings receive uniform shares of home and foreign service, no
reason is seen for granting leave on the same scale for the two varieties of service.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it not be possible to hold over the residue of leave to these men returning from long distances abroad, and give it to them later, when they are stationed in home service ships, and give it in, addition to ordinary annual leave?

Sir J. CRAIG: I will certainly have inquiry made into that suggestion.

CABINS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether any cabins in small ships are now occupied by officers' servants; if so, what are their duties and status; whether engineers in charge of the propelling and other important machinery in His Majesty's ships should have priority in the use of these cabins before the personal servants of officers, etc.; and whether, where the fourth cabin is used continuously as a store room, arrangements can be made for their use by the engineer-in-charge?

Sir J. CRAIG: As far as is known, none of the cabins in small ships are occupied by officers' servants. This is only the case in large ships where certain chief stewards and cooks are allotted cabins. In all large vessels the engineer officer in charge has a cabin; this part of the question does not, therefore, arise. Cabins are never permanently used as store rooms, and since my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 24th ultimo I have ascertained that no case has been reported in which cabins have even temporarily been used as store rooms.

RESERVE FLEET (ADMIRALS).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many admirals are now flying their flags in the ships of the Reserve Fleet; whether in all cases these officers have full staffs; what were the dates of their appointment; and in how many cases have they been to sea in their flagships since hoisting their flags?

Sir J. CRAIG: The Reserve Fleet is under the command of a Vice-Admiral with four Rear-Admirals under him for the administration of the Reserve ships at the various ports. These officers are allowed special reduced staffs.
The dates of their appointments were as follows:—

Vice-Admiral Commanding Reserve Fleet, 14th September, 1920.
Rear-Admiral Reserve Fleet, the Nore, 17th March, 1920.
Rear-Admiral Reserve Fleet, Portsmouth, 23rd April, 1920.
Rear-Admiral Reserve Fleet, Devon-port, 9th April, 1920.
Rear-Admiral Reserve Fleet, Rosyth, 1st May, 1920.
The Vice-Admiral has been to sea in his flagship, but the Rear-Admirals have not been required to proceed to sea.

MINE EXPLOSION, SANDGATE.

Sir PHILIP SASSOON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the serious explosion of a mine on the South Coast, near Sandgate, on Sunday morning last, which resulted in the death of two coast-guardsmen and in the destruction of property in the neighbourhood to the estimated value of several thousands of pounds; and whether his Department is prepared to pay compensation to the relatives of those who lost their lives and to those whose property was destroyed?

Sir J. CRAIG: My attention has been called to the explosion referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend, which resulted in the regrettable death of two Coast Guard ratings and in the destruction of certain property. The Coast Guard ratings appear to have lost their lives in the course of the performance of their duty, and the claims of dependent relatives will be dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions. The Admiralty cannot admit any liability for damage done to surrounding property by the explosion of mines washed ashore. The full report of the circumstances, however, is not yet to hand, but I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as it is received.

Sir P. SASSOON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any assurance that this matter will be pressed forward as soon as possible, because many of the sufferers in this explosion are placed in a position of complete ruin?

Sir J. CRAIG: A report has already been asked for, and I do not anticipate
any delay; but as the Admiralty cannot undertake any steps in connection with loss to the civil population, perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put a question down to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITAL (SICK BERTH STAFF).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the findings of the committee which recently visited Devonport to inquire into the accommodation of the sick berth staff at the Royal Naval Hospital?

Sir J. CRAIG: This Committee, which is dealing with a large number of other shore establishments in addition to the Royal Naval Hospital at Plymouth, has not yet made its report.

CAPITAL SHIPS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state what capital ships are now in course of construction in the Royal yards and in private yards, respectively; and when it is expected the work on these ships will be completed?

Sir J. CRAIG: There are no capital ships now in course of construction for His Majesty's Navy in the Royal yards or by private firms.

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMES (UNITED STATES AND JAPAN).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information regarding the Naval construction programmes of the United States of America and Japan, specifying in each case the number of ships laid down and the class to which they belong?

Sir J. CRAIG: As the answer is a long one, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following answer is supplied:

As regards the United States of America, in 1916 the United States Congress authorised a three years' programme —also in 1917, 250 destroyers and 30 submarines were authorised as a war measure.

The ships authorised by both measures are as under:—


Battleships
10


Battle Cruisers
6


Light Cruisers
10


Destroyers
300


Submarines
about 97

Of the above the following are now under construction, together with one battleship belonging to the 1915 programme, the remainder having been completed:—


Battleships
11


Battle Cruisers
6


Light Cruisers
10


Destroyers
63


Submarines
54


Gunboats
1

Japan has on hand (a) the balance of an old programme due for completion in 1923–24, and (b) a new programme due for completion in 1927–28.

(a) The residue of the old programme is:—


Battleships
4


Battle Cruisers
4


Light Cruisers
11


Destroyers
41

(b) The new programme provides for:—


Battleships
4


Battle Cruisers
4


Light Cruisers
12


Destroyers
30 to 40

The number of ships laid down, including those completing, in so far as is reported, is: —


Battleships
4


Battle Cruisers
Nil


Light Cruisers
5


Destroyers
(at least) 8

With regard to submarines, there is no official information available.

The figures in both cases are those reported up to the end of September, 1920.

CADETS, TRAVELLING FACILITIES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether cadets from the training ships "Conway" and "Worcester" are allowed first-class return railway tickets at single fares for the purpose of travelling to and from their homes, whereas the privilege of reduced fares for boys of the Lancashire
and National Sea Training Homes at Liscard, Cheshire, has been withdrawn; if this withdrawal has his approval; on what grounds, if any, such distinction is allowed; and whether the privilege can be restored?

Sir J. CRAIG: The cheap travelling concessions granted in the War for leave were withdrawn, so far as they depended on the Admiralty's recommendation, from the training ships "Conway" and "Worcester," the National Sea Training Homes, Liscard, and other mercantile training homes at the end of June last, so that no distinction such as is suggested in the question is in operation, unless arrangements have been made privately by the institutions concerned with the railway companies. It was decided, when the whole question of travelling concessions was under consideration, that it was not possible for the Admiralty to recommend the continuance of War concessions to establishments not under Admiralty control, and it is regretted that the Admiralty are not in a position to press for the restoration of such privileges to persons not in the Naval Service.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not the fact that these boys are to a certain extent under the control of the Board of Education, who pay a £10 grant for their education; that these boys are poor, and that the withdrawal of this concession makes it difficult for them to visit their homes?

Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. and gallant Friend will recognise the fact that the withdrawal of this concession throughout the country is imposing a hardship upon the poorer classes of the community; but this particular case is not under the Admiralty.

ADMIRALTY OFFICES, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to a definite statement in the local Press to the effect that there are five Admiralty Departments still housed in the Royal Liver Buildings in Liverpool and that the rentals of these offices and the staffs employed are large; and will he make a full statement on the matter, giving the names and purposes of the Departments, the rents paid for offices, and the number and total salaries of the staffs?

Sir J. CRAIG: As the answer is rather a long one I will, with the hon. Gentle man's permission, have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:—

My attention has been drawn to the statement in question. Although some of the facts of the matter have already been stated in answer to recent questions, the following statement covers the whole of the present question: The Departments occupying offices in the Royal Liver Buildings are: the Defensive Equipment of Merchant Ships Department, the Director of Naval Construction, the Admiral Superintendent (Reconditioning), the Civil Engineer-in-Chief. The Defensive Equipment of Merchant Ships Department is engaged in the reconditioning of merchant vessels equipped during the War with gun armament (of which there were 4,300 at the time of the Armistice), and with paravanes (of which there were 2,964). Two rooms are occupied by a staff of 15, drawing a total annual salary of £5,106. As regards the Director of Naval Construction Department, Liverpool is the headquarters of a very large district. The Warship Production Superintendent at Liverpool and his staff are in charge of all vessels, warships and auxiliaries, trawlers and drifters, building in the whole of North-West district of England, including Barrow and Ireland. They are also overseers for all shipbuilding material purchased for the Naval Service throughout the same area, which for this purpose includes Birmingham, Manchester, and surrounding districts. They further deal with all questions involved in the settlement of the contracts for all ships built in the district during the War, whether completed, cancelled, or transferred in an incomplete condition to the Royal Dockyards, including the financial questions involved. The disposal of surplus material resulting from the cancellation of Admiralty vessels which were building in many yards, small and large, throughout the districts, also the settlement of claims resulting from an enormous number of broken sub-contracts, involves a great volume of work, more particularly as this Department is settling up all the remainder of the ship constructive and material questions left by the various Departments—now disbanded—set up by the Controller of the Navy during the War to provide the enormous Fleet
required. When the temporary work is done there will remain a permanent staff to deal with the ordinary overseering work for Naval Supplies. This staff will be less than that engaged on this work for many years before the War.

The staff at Liverpool itself numbers nine officers, drawing a total annual salary of about £4,000. They occupy two offices (converted into three rooms). Other offices have now been found for this Department at a rent of £60 a year, and it is hoped that they will be ready for occupation in February next. The Admiral Superintendent (Reconditioning) with his staff (16 in all) is engaged in closing accounts in connection with armed merchant cruisers reconditioned. The Belfast district is included. He occupies six rooms. Three of these will be vacated in a few days' time, and the remainder, it is hoped, in March, when the Liverpool office will be closed. The total salaries amount to £4,800 a year.

For the Liverpool district, the civil engineer-in-chief has an officer in charge of works (with a foreman of works and a typist) occupying one room. His duties are now connected with the surrender and reconditioning of property taken over for war purposes. This work is nearing an end, and the office will be closed in March next. The salaries amount to £777 a year. As regards the general question of rent, the total amount cannot be given. The offices were requisitioned, and, with the exception of three rooms, for which a payment of £12 10s. a month is made, the rental value is still under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any further communication from the High Commissioner in Mesopotamia regarding the progress being made by the new Arab Government which he can communicate to the House; what progress is being made in the drafting of the organic law; and whether conditions in Mesopotamia now permit of the reopening of trade on the railways and by river?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): Various communications which I have lately received
from the High Commissioner on matters of detail show that the Council of State has entered upon its administrative duties, but I do not think that I can yet make any definite statement of progress in reply to the first two parts of the question. With regard to the third part, I am not aware that trade has ever been discontinued by river; railway connection between Baghdad and Basra has not yet been re-established.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will my right hon. Friend say when the transfer of Mesopotamia to this Department, as suggested in his speech of yesterday, is likely to take place?

Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say, but I hope soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (RAIDS).

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the constant raids into the North-west Frontier Province of India extending to the murder and capture of British officers, the Government of India has formulated any definite and permanent policy for dealing with the frontier; and, if so, when it may be hoped that these raids will cease?

Mr. MONTAGU: As a result of the Afghan War, and of the part played in it by some of the tribes, military operations have been undertaken against the Mahsuds and Wazirs with complete success. The Mahsuds have taken contracts for road-making, and considerable numbers of them are now engaged in that peaceful occupation. The Wazirs have accepted the terms imposed by the Government of India. A railway is being constructed in the Kyber. The frontier militias have been re arranged and the distribution of regular troops re-arranged. And other measures have been, and are being, taken with the object of securing more stable conditions on the frontier. It may be hoped that the combined effect of these measures will eventually be to reduce, if not to prevent entirely, the number of raids, but I can, of course, name no date.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the railway actually been commenced through
the Khyber, and is the policy of railways and roads to be extended to other parts of the frontier as opportunity offers?

Mr. MONTAGU: Road-making is the best security, I think, against raids. I am not quite sure whether the railway has actually been commenced, but I think it has. I am informed that it was to be commenced last month. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question.

INDIA STORES, BELVEDERE ROAD.

Mr. GILBERT: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India what general increases in salaries and what war bonuses have been granted to the staffs at the India Stores, Belvedere Road, S.E., since 1914; whether the pensioned and unpensioned staff are treated on quite a different basis as regards war bonus; whether he is aware that there is discontent amongst the staff employed there, and can his Department inquire into the complaints of the staff with a view of placing all men who are doing the same kind of work on the same basis as regards pay, war bonus, and pensions?

Mr. MONTAGU: With the hon. Member's permission, I will have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the general increases in salaries.
War bonuses for pensionable staff are in accordance with decisions of His Majesty's Treasury based on the recommendations of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service. For the non-pensionable staff, they are in accordance with Government awards made by the Industrial Court from time to time for the Government employés concerned. At present the war bonus is 41s. a week on the pre-War wage of 25s. 6d., in addition to which 12 ½ per cent. is added to the total of wages and bonus. The only evidences of discontent that have been brought to my notice are a request from the labourers to be placed on the pensionable establishment, and a petition from the inspectors for an improvement in their salaries. All complaints from the staff are dealt with under the Whitley procedure as applied to Government Departments. These matters are at pre sent engaging the earnest attention of the High Commissioner for India.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it not quite usual to make a distinction between the pensioned and unpensioned staffs?

Mr. MONTAGU: I should not like to endorse any generalisations.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask whether there are any English or Christian members of the staff left?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. I have no knowledge of the religious belief of any of these people, but I am given to understand that they are nearly all English.

The following is the statement referred to:

General increases in salaries have been as follow:

Supervisors.

1914.—£250, rising to £500.
1920.—£325, rising to £600.

Assistant Inspectors.

1914.—£150, rising to £250.
1920.—£170, rising to £250.

Sub-Inspectors.

1914.—48s. a week, rising to 54s. a week.
1920.—£150, rising to £165.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINESWEEPERS' TRAWLING SOCIETY.

Mr. ROSE: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the systematic propaganda which is being carried on, obviously on behalf of interested parties, in the newspapers and elsewhere, against the proposed Minesweepers' Trawling Society with a view to persuading fishermen not to support and so lose the advantage of the scheme which was devised for their benefit; and whether he proposes to take any steps to counteract it?

Sir J. CRAIG: I have been asked to reply to this question. My attention has been drawn to a campaign against the Minesweepers' Trawling Society, but I do not think that any steps are necessary to counteract it. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Hull on the 15th ultimo, various matters in connection with the society are under consideration. A further pronouncement will be made when they have been duly considered.

Mr. ROSE: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will cultivate
that unusual Ministerial attribute of candour and let the House and the country know definitely and explicitly whether or not it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to burke this excellent scheme in the interests of a gang of profiteering fishmongers?

Sir J. CRAIG: My hon. Friend will recognise that his right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) is Chairman, or, at any rate, acting in connection with the scheme; he may, therefore, rest assured that the interests of which he is speaking at the moment will be well looked after by the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAKING TRADE (DISPUTES).

Sir J. D. REES: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state under what authority he intervenes in the internal dissensions of the baking business, whether relating to the sexes of the bakers or the manner, method, and times in, and at, which they bake?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The authority would be the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. If my hon. Friend, however, is referring to the Scottish baking dispute, I have not yet intervened, and should not do so as long as the Joint Industrial Council is dealing with the matter.

Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the object of the right hon. Gentleman and the object of the Government to keep out of the baking business, and out of all business, except that of governing

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend misunderstands the situation. I am not "in the baking business." There is a dispute, and, while I have a very strong prejudice about people minding their own business, it is my duty under the Industrial Courts Act, Part I, Section 2, Sub-section (2), to intervene if I think I ought to do so in the public interest.

Sir J. D. REES: Without any application?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, in the bulk of cases I receive an application. Occasionally I do not. If I do not, I hold a court of inquiry under Part II.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Member know what once happened to the chief baker?

Sir J. D. REES: Will the Government continue to be a party to disputes of this character for an indefinite period?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps my hon. Friend had better read the Act!

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LONDON BOROUGHS.

Viscount CURZON: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to circulate to the Press a list showing the number of ex-service men unemployed in each borough in London; whether the borough council is on the King's Roll or not; how many ex-service men are employed in each case; whether any special appeal has been addressed to them on the matter; and, if so, with what result?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour which Metropolitan borough Councils have, and which have not, given their names to the King's Roll?

Dr. MACNAMARA: To give the figures for each Metropolitan borough is very difficult, as the areas are not coterminous with the Labour Exchange areas. As regards the second part of the question, 23 of the 28 borough councils are on the King's Roll—a comparatively good record. I am continuing my appeal to the other five, and I hope I may secure their favourable response.

Viscount CURZON: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate the names of the five abstaining boroughs?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I would rather not at the moment. It may very well be that some of these five boroughs, the views of which are before me, are already employing the requisite number, but are not on the list. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I will not give them any rest in the matter.

Viscount CURZON: May I repeat my question to-day week as to the five?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As to the date, I will discuss it with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain LOSEBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that within a reasonable period he will publish a complete list of these borough councils who have not supported the Government plan?

Sir W. DAVISON: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can ascertain in seven days whether or not these five boroughs are employing a sufficient number of men to entitle them to be on the roll?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Compared with local authorities over the country, I think we have done very well—23 out of 28— as the average figures will show. I will do my best for the men; I hope I may not fail.

INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORIES.

Mr. CLOUGH: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour why, when there are 18,072 places in the instructional factories, only 8,000 men have been selected for training at the end of the second year after the Armistice; what is the cause of the delay; why these places cannot be immediately filled, in view of the number of candidates; what is the average cost of the training of each man in Government factories, including the charge for interest or depreciation on capital assets; what is the accountancy staff now employed in connection with such factories; and whether he is aware of the public criticisms to the effect that the whole administration of these factories tends to be slow, costly, and thus relatively ineffective?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot accept the implication that there has been a two years' delay in filling the Government instructional factories that have been set up by the Ministry of Labour. It was not until August, 1919, that, this Ministry took over the full administration of these schemes, and such was the difficulty of obtaining suitable premises that many months elapsed before it was found possible to acquire sufficient accommodation. When the buildings had been acquired, extensive adaptations and the installation of elaborate equipment were necessary in many cases. The average cost of training a man in a Government instructional factory is £25 per month, including his allowance and a proper charge for depreciation on capital assets. The Accountancy Staff now employed at such factories is 229, and the cost is 2 per cent, of the expenditure of the factories. Since I
took up my work at the Ministry of Labour I have visited many training centres in different parts of the country, and I am satisfied that they are carrying out well the requitement of the profound obligation under which we rest to the men being trained in them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there shall be no stint in these factories of the necessary appliances and the necessary upkeep expenses of training these men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We shall certainly have regard to the prudent expenditure of public money. Subject to that, as far as I am concerned, these men will get in training all we can give them.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. SUGDEN: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if all unemployed sailors, soldiers, and airmen have now been dealt with by having had suitable employment offered to them; if he will state the numbers of these men who have not been able to accept such offers by reason of the un-suitability of employment offered, considering either their lack of training, physical incapacity, or labour regulations; and what steps he proposes to take to enable all such fighting men to overcome these various handicaps and obtain employment?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I certainly could not say that all unemployed ex-service men have been dealt with by having suitable employment offered to them, though I can say that no effort has been spared by the Employment Exchanges to find suitable employment. And in that endeavour my hon. Friend will realise that our difficulties have been greatly increased by the recent fall in the employment barometer. As regards disabled men, my hon. Friend is familiar with our training system for disabled men. And as regards the case of the men whose disabilities are of such a character as to make it extremely unlikely that they can ever effectively compete in the industrial market, I appointed on 22nd September an Inter-Departmental Committee, including representatives of the Ministry of Pensions and of the Ministry of Labour to consider the cases of these men and report to me as to whether it may be necessary for us to make further provision in their behalf.

Mr. SUGDEN: Are there any powers with which this House can endow the right hon. Gentleman that he requires in order to enable him to deal effectively with this problem?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards these disabled men I shall in due course receive the report to which I have referred and it will be considered, and then I shall make the necessary representations to the Government.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the Departmental Committee will report on this very urgent matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Parliamentary Secretary, to whom I am greatly indebted in regard to this question, has promised to report, if possible, before the close of the year.

Sir W. DAVISON: I wish to ask whether the negotiations with the building trade unions are yet complete, in order that these 50,000 men can be employed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We are awaiting the Government decision as to the proposals which we may or may not put to the building trade. Until that decision is taken the whole thing is marking time. No arrangements can be made with the building trade at the moment until the decision of the Government has been arrived at. I hope that decision will be taken at an early date and then proposals will be put to the trade, and I hope they will help us by coming to a decision one way or the other.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this question the Government have been marking time for 16 months since July, 1919, and is it not high time that we knew whether the fault is with the building trade or the Government? The negotiations should be brought to an end one way or the other and these men should be found employment by Christmas.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has called my attention to the intermittent discussions which have gone on since July last year. I have already agreed that it is high time we got a decision in this matter and we shall do our best.

Mr. J. E. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the position unless a decision is arrived at
between the Government and the building trade?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that I need contemplate that for a moment. I am endeavouring to find an agreement without raising alternative or ulterior propositions until I have failed to get an agreement.

MENTAL CASES.

Mr. RAPER: 76.
asked the Minister of Health (1), how many discharged sailors and soldiers who are suffering from loss of memory or other nervous disability are at present in pauper lunatic asylums;
(2), how many discharged sailors and soldiers who are suffering from loss of memory or other nervous disability are at present in Poor Law institutions?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have made such inquiries as have been possible within the short time since my hon. Friend first asked this question, and, so far as I can ascertain, the number of discharged sailors and soldiers suffering from nervous disabilities who are at present in Poor Law institutions must be inconsiderable. No such cases would be admitted to lunatic asylums unless certified as insane. Poor Law authorities have been instructed to report all cases of discharged disabled sailors and soldiers who apply to them for relief to the Pensions Authorities.
I may add that, although I have used the word "inconsiderable," there does not appear to be definite evidence as to any.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Captain ELLIOT: 79.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to deal with the tuberculous ex-service men; and whether the Tuberculosis Bill will be passed through all its stages this Session?

Dr. ADDISON: Considerable additions have been and are being made to the available accommodation for the sanatorium treatment of tuberculous ex-service men, and to the facilities available for the concurrent treatment and training of these men. Provision is made in the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill for the establishment of village settlements and employment colonies for the benefit of tuberculous patients and their
families, but I regret to say that owing to the pressure of Parliamentary business it will not be possible to pass the Bill this Session.

Captain ELLIOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to whether it will be introduced at any early date next Session?

Dr. ADDISON: I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already replied to that question.

INJURY CLAIMS.

Mr. HURD: 94.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the increasing dissatisfaction among ex-service men by reason of the delays in the settlement of their injury and other claims; and if he will explain why the hon. Member for Frome has for six weeks been without more than a bald acknowledgment of his detailed and reiterated statement of the claims of his constituent, Charles E. Wheeler, Styles Hill Cottage, Rodden, Frome, late regimental tailor, 2/1st North Somerset Yeomanry, registered No. 25, injuries, 6043 (F3)?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I regret that it has been impossible so far to amplify the answer given to the hon. Member in October last. Wheeler was not enlisted and has therefore no claim to any soldier's pension in respect of the disability from which he is suffering. Endeavours have been made to discover on what precise footing he was engaged by the 2/lst Battalion, North Somerset Yeomanry, as it is not usual for civilian employés to be allowed to wear uniform. The fact, however, that he may have been allowed to wear uniform does not alter the position and he is apparently only entitled to be treated as a civilian under the Workmen's Compensation Act or otherwise. For the reasons which have already been given to the hon. Member I am at present unable to authorise any payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act. His case would appear to fall under the National Health Insurance Act, and in such cases there is no liability upon Army Funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL WAGES.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any
departmental inquiries have been held into the minimum wage question since the proposal to introduce a Minimum Wage Commission Bill was first announced, whether any persons have been specially engaged for the purpose of these inquiries; and when the Bill will be introduced?

Major HAYWARD: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to introduce the Minimum Wage Commission Bill?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will answer these questions together. With regard to the question when it may be possible to proceed with the Minimum Wage Commission Bill, I can only refer to the reply given on 8th November last by the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for White-chapel and Derbyshire (West), a copy of which is being sent to my hon. Friends. No special departmental inquiries have been held into the Minimum Wage question, and no special staff has been engaged for the purpose of such inquiries. That question has, however, been kept in view during the continuous inquiries which have been in progress in connection with the establishment of new Trade Boards, which, as my hon. Friends are aware, are representative bodies charged with the duty of fixing minimum rates of wages in their respective trades.

Mr. THOMSON: How soon will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a more definite reply seeing that last night the House had to adjourn because we had no work to do?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot give any undertaking that it will be proceeded with this Session. I must point out, however, that the substance of the thing has been arrived at by the development of the trade boards and the system of wages agreements either through the instrumentality of the Joint Industrial Council or otherwise. It is a matter which is not being allowed to rest.

Captain O'GRADY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the minimum wage will be established by the trade board without regard to the wages which may be fixed by the Industrial Council?

Dr. MACNAMARA: It must not be taken that nothing has been done. Much has been done by the rapid development
of the trade board system and agreements which have been arrived at by the Joint Industrial Council.

Major ENTWISTLE: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour in how many industries wages have been reduced since the lapsing of the provisions of the Industrial Courts Act which stabilised war wages; and what have been the reductions in question?

Mr. GALBRAITH: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour whether strikes have been threatened in any industries owing to the announcement by employers of forthcoming reductions in wages; if so, what are the industries in question; and whether the Government proposed to take any action?

Mr. GALBRAITH: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information showing that wages are about to be reduced in any industries; and, if so, what are the industries and what are the proposed reductions?

Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I am aware, there have been since the lapse of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Acts no general reductions of wages affecting either a whole industry or a substantial branch of an industry. A few isolated cases have come to my notice where particular firms have reduced wages, including some instances where the higher rates payable to women under the special munitions of war orders have been replaced by rates approximating to those fixed by the appropriate Trade Boards. I am not aware of any threatened general reductions of wages, except that the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation has announced its intention of withdrawing an increase of wages of 12s. a week given last April to joiners employed by members of the Federation. The action of the Government in disputes arising from these causes would be on the lines laid down in the Industrial Courts Act, 1919.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-KAISER.

Mr. CLOUGH: 46 and 47.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is now in a position to state whether it is correct that in January, 1919, £1,583,000 was paid to the ex-Kaiser as King of Prussia, in
August, 1919, £802,600, in October, 1919, £701,600, and since that date £1,150,000; whether, if the statement is correct, some steps can be taken to secure for the victims of the ex-Kaiser's policy some assistance from these vast private funds;
(2) whether the attention of the Government has been called to the official admission in the Reichstag that large sums of money amounting already to a great deal more than 100,000,000 marks have already been smuggled out of the country, and that in these illegal proceedings some members of the Hohenzollern family are involved; and whether, seeing that the necessary reparation has not yet been made, the Entente Powers can assist in any way the German Government to prevent this smuggling by the members of the ex-Kaiser's family?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I understand that a sum of some 50,000,000 marks has been paid to the ex-Emperor since January, 1919. The greater part of this sum appears to have been paid in connection with the purchase of a house in Holland and the sale of certain property in Berlin. The attention of the Reparation Commission, who are charged with the execution of the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty, has been drawn to these payments.

Colonel C. LOWTHER: Should not that money have been handed over as payment of the indemnity?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Reparations Commissioners have been appointed for the purpose of dealing with that matter. We have drawn their attention to it, and I am sure they will deal with it.

Colonel LOWTHER: Is the money recoverable or not?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not easy to recover money which has been smuggled out of Germany into another country.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Have the Allies taken precautions that money like this paid to the ex-Kaiser shall not be used for the purpose of bringing the Hohenzollerns back to Berlin?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Allies do consider it their duty to keep an eye on what is being done in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINN FEIN OUTRAGES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS (IRON SCREENS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the erection of permanent iron gates to close in when necessary the approaches to Government buildings in Whitehall; and whether such safeguards would be more effective, more dignified, and in the long run considerably cheaper than a continued series of wooden barricades?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The Office of Works, at the request of the Government, are making arrangements for the future replacement of the temporary wooden barriers by simple iron railings. An iron screen for the Park end of King Charles Street, designed in connection with the now public buildings, has been constructed, and will shortly be erected.

POLICE CARRYING ARMS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the ever-increasing risks to the police force of this country, he will again consider the advisability of arming that body with something more efficient than truncheons?

Mr. LEONARD LYLE: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet will consider the advisability of supplying the police of this country with adequate means of defence against Sinn Fein gunmen?

Mr. SHORTT: In the Metropolitan Police any constable engaged on dangerous duty is supplied with a revolver if he desires, subject to proper precautions as to his training in handling it and instructions as to when it may be used. Other police authorities have discretion to supply their men with firearms under like conditions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the high respect in which the British police are held is not due to the fact that they are not armed and do not go about bristling with weapons like the Prussian police?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is there any reason why we should not safeguard our splendid police force in the same way as is done in every other country?

Colonel LOWTHER: That is why they are killed in Dublin.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

Mr. LYLE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government possesses sufficient powers to deal swiftly and effectively with Sinn Fein outrages in this country; and, if not, whether he will seek them from Parliament?

Mr. SHORTT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I think the existing powers, including those under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, arc sufficient. When the Defence of the Realm Act expires, it may be necessary to come to Parliament for further powers.

PASSPORTS.

Mr. LYLE: 58
asked the Prime Minister whether the passport system is being enforced in the case of all Irish wishing to visit this country?

Captain R. TERRELL: 84.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether all steps have been taken to prohibit the entrance into Ireland of all aliens unless there are very special reasons for their admission?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): I have been asked to reply to these questions. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had these matters constantly in mind, but; he has not hitherto felt it necessary to take any special steps for the purpose indicated.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PALESTINE AND MESOPOTAMIA MANDATES.

Major BARNES: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether draft mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia will be published before their submission to the Council of the League of Nations, as requested in the Washington Note to His Majesty's Government on the Mesopotamian oil agreement?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The note from the United States Government is under consideration.

BRITISH REPRESENTATIVES (INSTRUCTIONS).

Mr. SUGDEN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister if the representatives of Parliament attending the League of Nations Conference have powers to conclude agreements with the other representatives without reporting the proposals first to both Houses of Parliament, or will the whole of the agreements concluded be subject to confirmation by the contracting Powers represented there?

Mr. ACLAND: 65.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether instructions have been issued by His Majesty's Government to the principal British representatives on the assembly of the League of Nations as to how their votes are to be cast on each question which appears on the agenda of the assembly; if not, whether they will be given such instructions before the several questions are put to the vote; and whether instructions will be issued after a conference between the Cabinet and the British representatives?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have already stated in answer to a previous question, the representatives at the League of Nations Conference must have a certain latitude, but they will, of course, communicate with the Government in matters of consequence.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

SINN FEIN PAMPHLET.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a Sinn Fein pamphlet entitled, "The Unanimous Declaration of the Episcopate of Ireland," which purports to be signed or issued with the authority of Cardinal Logue, the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, and 25 Irish Roman Catholic Bishops; whether, without making any allusion to Sinn Fein murders and other crimes, the said pamphlet charges the British Government with having established a reign of terror in Ireland, of being responsible for the assassination of guiltless persons, and generally of having organised atrocities similar to the atrocities of the Turkish terror, or the excesses of the Bed Bolshevik armies in Russia, while at the same time the Press
has been gagged and public meetings suppressed; whether he is aware that this pamphlet is being largely circulated in Belgium, France, and other foreign countries and in the Colonies; whether he has ascertained whether Cardinal Logue and the other Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops have admitted their responsibility for the statements contained in the pamphlet; and whether our representative at the Vatican has made representations on the matter to the Pope, and with what result?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information in regard to the pamphlet. I am applying to the Irish Office for information about it.

Sir W. DAVISON: Assuming that the facts are as stated, will the right hon. Gentleman see that representations are made to the Vatican as stated in the last part of the question?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think it is necessary to make such representations. I should like to see the document first.

MURDERS AND REPRISALS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 80.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he now has information as to whether, on the 25th October last, a band of armed men, who described themselves as secret service agents, entered the house of William Gleeson, Moher, County Tipperary, in search of his son, James, whom they stated they had come to kill; whether they threatened the father with death, and, on his son, William, offering his life for his father, they took him, the son, outside the house and murdered him; whether any form of inquiry has taken place; and what was the evidence and finding?

Mr. HENRY: I have not yet received the report of the court of inquiry in this case, and regret that I am, therefore, not yet in a position to deal with the hon. Member's question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why, after well over a month, has information not yet arrived about these murders, and may we be assured that the murder of an Irish peasant or his son is not of such small account that the Government do not bestir themselves to trace the perpetrator?

Mr. HENRY: Every effort is being made by the military to carry out their duties, but necessarily their duties are rather varied and dangerous.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this case so horrible, on the face of it, as to have caused some extra steps to be taken to find out the murderer and to prevent the recurrence of such crimes?

Mr. HENRY: I regret to say that, if horror is the test, every case would present the same aspect.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, seeing that these murders took place on the 25th October, whether an inquiry has in fact yet been held, and, if not, why not?

Mr. HENRY: I have already stated that the report has not been received. It is the absence of the report that prevents the giving of the information.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Has an inquiry actually been held?

Mr. HENRY: I have said so. It is the absence of the report of the inquiry that prevents the giving of an answer.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is not a report sent immediately to the Chief Secretary after an inquiry? Is not this a matter in which it is important to have a report at once?

Mr. HENRY: Very often the inquiry has to be adjourned for the purpose of trying to discover other things.

Mr. LYLE: Is it not a fact that questions such as those which have been put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull are really encouraging murders on the other side?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 81.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can now state whether two ex-soldiers, named Blake and O'Neill, were court martialled recently on the charge of murdering Constable Walter Oakley in Limerick last July; whether they were acquitted; whether they were returning to their homes by motor on the night of the 20th November when they were stopped by armed men, who asked for them by name and then murdered O'Neill and the brother of Blake; whether the murderers have been placed under arrest; what is the Government theory for the crime; and whether Blake and O'Neill were married and leave families?

Mr. HENRY: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the remaining parts of the question, I regret to state that James O'Neill, one of the prisoners, and Michael Blake, the brother of the other prisoner, were murdered on the date mentioned and in the circumstances described. All efforts to trace the perpetrators of the crime have, unfortunately, been unsuccessful, and the Government have no information which would enable them to form any theory in the matter. James O'Neill was unmarried, but Michael Blake was married and leaves four children.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated in the Press that Government motor lorries were near the scene of this tragedy, and is it quite impossible to find out anything about it? Is it possible at night in Ireland for men to be held up and shot like this and for the Government to know nothing whatever about it?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir; and also by day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if one of these men was not an ex-soldier who fought with gallantry in the War, and are the Government taking no further steps to find out the perpetrators?

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether any inquiry has been held in this case yet?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, it does not matter; it is only an ex-service man!

Mr. HENRY: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. DEVLIN: 86.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to an outbreak on the part of the Crown forces at Ballylongford, County Kerry, on Monday night last; whether he is aware that the Crown Forces descended upon the village discharging firearms; whether they totally destroyed by fire the premises of Mr. John Collins, and also set fire to the schoolhouse and the residence of Mr. Daniel O'Rorke, school teacher, who sought safety in flight; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HENRY: I have called for, but have not yet received, a report with re-
ference to this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat this question, of which I only received notice yesterday, one day next week.

Mr. DEVLIN: Would it not be well to tell the military authorities, when they murder people, to send a report to the Chief Secretary?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, as stated by the special correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," almost every night for the last ten days members of the Crown forces police have set on fire one or more buildings in the City of Cork; whether several of the larger shops of the city have thus been destroyed, and whether attempts by the fire brigade to put down the fires have been prevented by shots from the forces of the Crown or by cutting the hoses; whether, after a raid by military and police in motor cars on houses at Ardee, County Louth, two young men named Kearney or Tearney, and a man named John O'Carroll, were taken out and killed by the forces of the Crown; for further particulars with regard to the raid on the offices of the "Irish Times," the chief Unionist organ m Dublin; whether it is true that the entire staff was gathered into a large room by a body of raiders armed and masked by handkerchiefs or some other form of covering; whether these raiders plunged revolvers into the faces of the staff; whether Mrs. Colman O'Connell and her two daughters were trapped in an upper floor of the building of the "Freeman's Journal" when the raid took place upon it, and whether they were rescued with great difficulty from the incendiary fire by a fire escape; and whether a considerable amount of property belonging to the newspaper was destroyed.

Mr. HENRY: I am informed that fires have broken out in Cork City on several nights during the past fortnight and that a number of large shops have been destroyed. The fire brigade allege that they were fired upon on one occasion and that the fire hoses have been maliciously damaged. The perpetrators of these incendiary outrages are unknown to the police, who have done everything in their power to assist in putting out the fires
and to prevent looting. In consequence of the allegation referred to, special police protection has since been given to the fire brigade while on duty. I am unable to make any statement in regard to the murders in Ardee pending the result of the military court of inquiry which is being held. The reply on the various points raised in the rest of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

Mr. DEVLIN: In regard to the outrages upon these two newspapers, one the leading Unionist journal in Dublin, what do you propose to do in the matter?

Mr. HENRY: We propose to catch the perpetrators, if possible, but it is exceedingly difficult to do so, and, seeing that one of the newspapers is Unionist, and the other is not, the persons who perpetrated these atrocities seem to be perfectly impartial.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Do not these events illustrate the hopeless breakdown of your Government in Ireland?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these two outrages occurred after curfew was in operation and when ordinary citizens were not allowed outside their houses; and is not this a clear case that these outrages were done by the servants of the Crown in Ireland, and is not that the reason why the perpetrators have not been caught?

Mr. HENRY: I do not draw that inference.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can you draw any inference from anything?

KIDNAPPING (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 82.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of police officers and men, if any, kidnapped in Ireland since the 1st January last; the number escaped or restored to liberty; and the number whose fate or whereabouts is unknown?

Mr. HENRY: No officers of the police forces in Ireland were kidnapped during the period mentioned. The number of men kidnapped is 24. Of these, 18 have been released, and the fate and whereabouts of the remaining six are unknown.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men and officers kidnapped in Ireland since 1st January last; the number escaped or restored to liberty; and the number whose whereabouts or fate is unknown?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): The number of officers and other ranks of the Army kidnapped since 1st January last is ten. One has escaped; two have been restored to liberty; one was subsequently found murdered: and the whereabouts or fate of six is unknown.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Is there any reason to believe that any of these may have deserted?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that is a most insulting suggestion in reference to gallant British officers whose present whereabouts and safety must be the cause of the most poignant anxiety to their relatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

EDUCATION ACT, 1918.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement as to the possibility of postponing the operation of the Education Act until the finances of the nation bear a better proportion to the cost of the Act than they do at present?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Finance Committee of the Cabinet have this, as well as any other possible means of curtailing expenditure, now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Mr. SUGDEN: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give the latest details of the means being used to punish the late German Emperor, the German princes, the late Austrian Emperor, and all other War criminals; and if he desires any support from the Houses of Parliament to assist him in his endeavour to press for immediate judgment on all the persons concerned?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As to the first part of the question, I have nothing to add to answers recently given to a series of
questions. As to the second part, as was stated recently in answer to a similar question, we have every reason to expect that the German Government will proceed with these trials without undue delay.

GERMAN DEBTORS.

Captain LOSEBY: 61.
asked the Prime Minister if arrangements have yet been made whereby British creditors of German debtors, whose debts were contracted in Germany prior to August, 1914, will be paid in full at the pre-War rate of exchange?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, this is so in cases where both creditor and debtor were residing in their respective countries on 10th January last, the date of the ratification of the Peace Treaty with Germany, and debts to the amount of some ten millions sterling have been paid already.

Captain LOSEBY: 62.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that sums paid into German banks or German branches of British banks to the credit of British customers shortly after the outbreak of War, which were sequestrated by the German Government, are being now paid over at the post-War rate of exchange, the British debtors thus losing the greater proportion of their capital; and if he will say if any action in the matter is contemplated?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of the fact, and I hope that the circumstances of any such case will be at once communicated to the British Clearing Office. Payment of moneys belonging to British nationals sequestrated by the German Government during the War is claimed by the British Clearing Office at pre-War rate of exchange.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position is anomalous, inasmuch as a German debt which was contracted prior to 1914 is paid in full, whereas if that same debt was paid to a German bank or the German branch of a British bank after the outbreak of War it was only paid at the post-War rate of exchange—or something like one-tenth of the debt? If so, will the hon. Gentleman take any steps in the matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not quite sure I follow the hon. Member's point. I think he is under a misapprehension. Debts which were due from a German to a British national arising either before the War or during the War out of transactions entered into before the War are both payable at pre-War rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (DECISIONS).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government, as signatories of the Treaty of Versailles, undertook by Article 405 of the treaty to bring the draft conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference before Parliament within the period of one year at most from, the closing of the session of the conference; whether the International Conference at Washington adopted a draft convention concerning the employment of women before and after childbirth; and whether, in view of the fact that the year from the closing of the conference expires on 27th January, 1921, he will assure the House that the Government intend to carry out their treaty obligations by introducing a Bill to give effect to this draft convention before 27th January next?

Dr. ADDISON: I can only refer my noble Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. A damson) on the 25th November, of which I will send him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR CONTROL (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 63.
asked the Prime Minister if the Liquor Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill is to be withdrawn; if so, will he take immediate steps to have the whole of the regulations annulled which have been made by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); is he aware that the general opinion of the country, including those interested in the trade and the management of clubs, is in favour of a reduction of hours of sale from the pre-War period; will he consult representatives of the trade and of clubs to obtain their views as to the limitation of the hours of sale;
and is he aware that a Bill with this object only is likely to secure general acceptance

Captain TERRELL: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement as to the Government intentions with respect to the Liquor Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I shall answer these questions together. The Government had introduced the Temporary Provisions Bill in the hope that it would be non-controversial and give a longer time in which to deal with the whole question by legislation. It is now evident that there would be a certain measure of controversy in connection with the Bill, and as it is essential that this Session should not be unduly prolonged the Government do not propose to proceed with it, and will prepare a comprehensive Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: In view of the fact that these liquor restrictions were in express terms enacted to promote the production of munitions and the transport of arms, and in view of the fact that these necessities no longer exist, why on earth not put an end to the whole thing at once?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a Very clear question, but it is not a new question. It was stated, for example, in the manifesto of the Prime Minister at the time of the Election that we intend, if possible, to get some advantage from experience in these matters during the War. There is no desire on the part of any one to return to exactly pre-War conditions. The problem is a very difficult one, and I am sorry we have not been able to deal with it, but we will do so as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the right hon. Gentleman knows the House rose last night at seven o'clock owing to there being no business, cannot some of these matters be brought on?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not merely a question of coming to the House and listening. It is a very difficult problem which will require great care on the part of the Government and a great amount of consultation with the different classes in the country concerned.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the Government caused inquiry to be made as
to the result in the country of the War restrictions, and particularly of the Carlisle experiment? If so, will the result be communicated to the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a good deal of information, but I doubt whether it would be of advantage to put it before the House now. The House, I am convinced, realises that it is not a simple problem, but one that must be adequately dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK AND DAIRIES BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 66.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the need of preventing tuberculosis and the delay in putting into operation the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, he will take the Second Reading of the Milk and Dairies Bill this week or next?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that it will not be possible to find time for the further stages of this Bill this Session.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that the matter may be dealt with early next Session, seeing it is one of life and death?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That will be carefully considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOUNDARIES EXTENSION (LEEDS AND BRADFORD).

Mr. BAR RAND: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of the ex-chairman of the Bradford Corporation Finance and General Purposes Committee to the effect that the inquiry into the Leeds and Bradford extension schemes will cost each of those cities at least £60,000; whether the ratepayers of those cities have ever had an opportunity in any shape or form of expressing an opinion upon these schemes, involving as they do a heavy additional burden on the rates; and whether, before he considers these schemes, he will require that such an opportunity shall be given to those upon whom the financial burden of this inquiry will fall?

Dr. ADDISON: I have no official information in regard to the matters mentioned in the first and second parts of the ques-
tion, and have no authority to adopt the suggestion made in the last part of the question. I may perhaps remind my hon. Friend that I have made suggestions to the parties concerned, which, if adopted, would materially diminish the expense of these inquiries. I would point out that there was quite recently a municipal election in each of these boroughs, and that I cannot question the representative character of those elected by the people.

Mr. BARRAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the necessary steps to obtain powers to enable him to assist the ratepayers of these cities in resisting the waste of public money on inquiries—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Member entitled to read a supplementary question?

Mr. BARRAND: I was merely referring to my notes. Perhaps I may complete my question—If the right hon. Gentleman has, as stated, not the statutory powers at the present time to interfere in this matter, will he take steps to obtain such powers, so as to enable ratepayers who are resisting these unnecessary expenses to take effective action in the matter, seeing that they are opposing schemes which they do not approve, and with regard to which they have never been consulted?

Dr. ADDISON: There has been recently a municipal election in Leeds and Bradford. These questions cropped up and were discussed in great detail. I think it most undesirable for any Department to go behind the elected representatives of the ratepayers, who must speak through those representatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES (SANITARY ACCOMMODATION).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the facts given in the recently-published Report of His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories as to the deficiencies in the existing sanitary accommodation both in workplaces and in homes under certain local authorities; and, in view of the injury to public health, what steps he proposes to take to arrive at a satisfactory and uniform standard?

Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the Noble Lord's question is in the affirmative. The matter obviously concerns both the Home Office and the Ministry of Health, and I am in communication with my right hon. Friend as to joint action.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I ask whether the Ministry of Health have any power to act in cases of default, and whether they have ever done so?

Dr. ADDISON: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLATERS' SOCIETY, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. ATKEY: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the delay in completing certain houses being erected in Nottingham under the Housing Act; whether he is aware that some houses have been ready for slating for two months; that the builder has a competent slater willing to do the work, but who cannot be employed because he is not a member of the slaters' society; that he is willing to join and pay all demands, but is refused on the ground that he was not bound as an apprentice to the trade; and whether, in view of the need for houses, and the fact that at least three pairs could now have been tenanted which remain uncompleted, he can take any steps to induce this trade union to adopt a more generous attitude?

Dr. ADDISON: My attention has been drawn to this case. I am making further inquiries, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

BUILDING COSTS.

Mr. GILBERT: 74.
asked the Minister of Health what is the cheapest and dearest house which has been passed by his Department both for town and country districts; will he state what is the accommodation provided in each case; and whether the houses are built of brick, concrete, or other material?

Dr. ADDISON: Owing to the great variation in accommodation, size and character of construction of the houses which have been approved, and the wide
difference in the cost of building at different places and different dates, no useful comparison can be made between individual examples of houses at exceptionally low and exceptionally high prices per house. Houses, however, have been approved at prices ranging from about £600 each to about £1,200 each. The former usually contain a living room, scullery, two or three bedrooms and offices; the latter a living room, parlour, scullery, four bedrooms and offices. Examples among the lowest and the highest prices occur for houses approved both in urban and rural districts, and with brick and concrete construction.

Mr. RENWICK: In the contracts which have been made, is there any provision that the ratepayers shall receive the advantage of airy fall in prices of material or labour that may occur between the signing of the contracts and the completion of the houses?

Dr. ADDISON: Oh, yes; I think that in practically all the forms of contract provisions to that effect are inserted.

Mr. RENWICK: Are the contracts at a fixed price, or on what is called a time and line basis?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not think there are any time and line contracts. They are mostly on a basis price, with variations in regard to the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred, up and down.

CEMENT AND BRICKS.

Mr. GILBERT: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is still a great shortage of cement and bricks for building purposes; whether his Department has any control over both these articles; can he make any statement as to how such control is exercised; if any preference is given for housing for these materials; and if other types of buildings, such as factories, are also allowed supplies?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware that in some parts of the country there have been difficulties in obtaining cement and bricks for building purposes. I have no control over these articles, but certain building materials, including bricks and cement, are purchased by the Department of Building Materials Supply, recently transferred to me from the Ministry of Muni-
tions, and sold to local authorities and others for use in connection with housing schemes.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has inquired into the question of how much of these materials is being used for export to France?

Dr. ADDISON: None of this material has been used for export. I know that some has been used for export, but none of the material referred to in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED WOMEN) ACT.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has been informed that the Bridgend and Cow-bridge Board of Guardians have passed a resolution strongly urging the Government to amend paragraph (c) of Section 5 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, by increasing the amount of £2 referred to in the paragraph; and whether he is prepared to introduce an amending Bill?

Dr. ADDISON: I have received a copy of this resolution, but the question of amending the Act referred to is not a matter for my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CAPTAIN BOWEN-COLTHURST.

Mr. MYERS: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Bowen-Colthurst, the officer involved in the death of Sheehy Skeffington, is now an officer in the Army of Occupation in Ireland; and, if so, what is his rank?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Captain Bowen-Colthurst is not now serving in the Army.

Mr. MYERS: Has this officer held any post in the Army since the unfortunate incident referred to in the question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like notice. I do not keep a record of every officer.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is he employed in any service by the Government at all?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could, no doubt, give an answer to that question if I had notice. I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMERSET LIGHT INFANTRY (SERGEANT H. F. WALTER).

Mr. HURD: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the reason of the delay in the return home of Sergeant Henry Frank Walter, No. 201, 602, l/4th Territorial Somerset Light Infantry, who enlisted in August, 1914, and whose last known address was attached section, Colaba, Bombay; and what other casualties of the Territorial Force have yet to be returned to this country from India?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: This man is not shown on the latest list received from the Commander-in-Chief of soldiers still serving in India on 14th October who were eligible for and desirous of demobilisation. It is therefore assumed that if Sergeant Walter is desirous of demobilisation and has not extended his service, he is on his way home, although there is no trace of his arrival in this country yet. I am telegraphing to the Commander-in-Chief, India, for further information in the case. The Commander-in-Chief, India, fully realises the necessity for the earliest possible despatch home of men eligible for and desirous of demobilisation, and the last list received from him shows only 13 demobilisable other ranks, of whom four were in hospital, and none were detained against their will.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA, CABLE NEWS SERVICE.

Mr. HURD: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government intends to aid in any way the proposal of Reuter's Agency to establish a new cable service for news between this country and Canada; if so, what is the exact nature of the proposed arrangement; and will any accruing advantages in the way of reduced cable rates or otherwise be open equally to all news agencies and Anglo-Canadian news correspondents?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 22nd November, to which at present I can add nothing.

Mr. HURD: Has nothing happened since the question, in view of the detailed statement made in the Press on the subject?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, nothing of which I am aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — WHEAT.

Mr. BROMFIELD: 95.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture What are the estimated exportable surpluses of wheat from Argentine, Canada, and the United States for the current wheat year as compared with the 1913–14 surpluses?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): The surplus of wheat available in Canada and the United States for export during the current cereal year is estimated to be as follows. The actual not exports in 1913–14 are given for comparison:


—
Net exports, 1913–14. Million qrs.
Estimated available surplus, 1920–21 Million qrs.


Canada
16.8
23


United States
19.9
25


In the case of Argentina, the crop has not yet been harvested, but on the basis of preliminary estimates of the yield, the surplus available for export from the 1920–21 crop may amount to 18,000,000 quarters, as compared with an actual net export of 4,800,000 quarters in 1913–14.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT TIMBER.

Mr. REMER: 103.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a sale was made in January, 1920, on approximately the same day as the 470 standards of flooring boards were sold to Messrs. Hillas at £31 per standard; that this sale was made out of the same parcel; and that the prices were £36 and £38 per standard; and whether, if documentary proof is given to him confirming these facts, he will cause a full inquiry to be made into this matter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think the hon. Member is mistaken, but I shall be prepared to consider the documents to which he refers, if he cares to send them to me.

Mr. REMER: As I am not the owner of the documents, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman receive the gentleman to whom they belong?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I shall want some evidence that any desirable issue is likely to come from that. The hon. Member has raised this on a good many occasions. I have been into it very carefully. I think there is no material ground on which I can grant the inquiry he suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY MILEAGE, CAPITAL AND NET RECEIPTS.

Sir W. RAEBURN: 101.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will forthwith issue a Return showing the mileage, capital, and net receipts in the year 1913 of the railways of Great Britain included in Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the Scottish Group of Coll D. 787, giving figures for each of the railways separately, and also the total figures of each group and the expenditure of each such railway in the years 1913 and 1919, and the estimated expenditure for the year 1920, giving the total figures for each group?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): I will consider the hon. Member's request, with a view, if found practicable, to issuing a statement before next Session which will give particulars as to the position of the companies affected by the Government's proposals. Information in regard to 1920 will, however, not be available by that date, but the question of issuing a subsequent Return will be considered later.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMENIA.

Mr. T. SHAW: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if Kemalist Turkish forces have attacked the Armenian Republic; if after sanguinary battles the Armenian troops were forced to abandon certain places; whether the Kemalist troops are advancing on the capital of Erivan; whether the Kemalist troops, are being supported by troops of any European country; and whether any steps are being taken by
the League of Nations or any of the Great Powers to arrange a peaceful settlement?

Colonel Sir R. SANDERS (Lord of the Treasury): Owing to an attack on the Erivan Republic by Kemalist troops the Armenian forces have been compelled to evacuate Kars and Alexandropol. An armistice was signed on 7th November, but fighting continued until 18th November, when a fresh armistice was signed. His Majesty's Government have no information that Erivan is in danger or that the troops of any European country are supporting the Kemalist forces. The League of Nations have appointed a committee to consider what steps can be taken to put an end to the hostilities between the Armenians and the Turkish Nationalists.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Shops (Early Closing) (No. 2) Bill with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to increase the number of Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries of State capable of sitting and voting in the Commons House of Parliament, and to transfer the powers of the Secretary for Scotland to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State." [Secretary of State for Scotland Bill [Lords].]

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following letters relating to the imprisonment of Members:—

Dublin District,

Lower Castle Yard,

Dublin,

D.D. No. 16/99 (R.O.),

29th November, 1920.

The Right Honourable the Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.I.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that on the 27th day of November, 1920, Mr. W. Sears, M.P. for South Mayo, was arrested under a
direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's prison, Mountjoy, on the same date.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. D. M. BROWNE,

Lieutenant-Colonel,

A.A. and Q.M.G. for Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

Dublin District,

Lower Castle Yard,

Dublin,

D.D. No. 16/99 (R.O.),

29th November, 1920.

The Right Honourable the Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.I.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that on the 24th day of November, 1920, Mr. E. J. Duggan, M.P. for South Meath, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's prison, Mountjoy, on the same date.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. D. M. BROWNE,

Lieutenant-Colonel,

A.A. and Q.M.G. for Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

Dublin District,

Lower Castle Yard,

Dublin,

D.D. No. 16/99 (R.O.),

29th November, 1920.

The Right Honourable the Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.I.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that on the 26th day of November, 1920, Mr. John MacNeill, M.P. for Londonderry City and National University, Dublin, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's prison, Mountjoy, on same date.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. D. M. BROWNE,

Lieutenant-Colonel,

A.A. and Q.M.G. for Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

Dublin District,

Lower Castle Yard,

Dublin,

D.D. No. 16/99 (R.O.),

29th November, 1920.

The Right Honourable the Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.I.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that on the 26th day of November, 1920, Mr. Arthur Griffith, M.P. for Cavan, East, and Tyrone,
North-West, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's prison, Mountjoy, on same date.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

A. D. M. BROWNE,

Lieutenant-Colonel,

A.A. and Q.M.G. for Major-General,

Competent Military Authority.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1920–21.

(CLASS 1.)

HOUSE BUILDING.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for Expenditure in respect of the erection of houses by the Office of Works on behalf of Local Authorities proceeding with Assisted Housing Schemes approved by the Ministry of Health in accordance with the provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act, 1919.

4.0 P.M.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain the necessity for the Supplementary Estimate and what is the inner meaning of this Vote. Some considerable time ago it was found that the housing schemes were not making that progress which we had hoped and which was anticipated, and that there were a number of local authorities, both in London and in the country, who, for a considerable number of reasons, were proceding very slowly and having great difficulty in getting along with their housing schemes. It was therefore decided that it would be advisable to use the organisation of my office, which has had considerable experience of this class of work, to act as agents of the Ministry of Health, and, in conjunction and cooperation with the local authorities, to undertake a number of housing schemes for local authorities in their capacity as architects and contractors. The finance of the scheme explains itself in this sense, that the local authorities are really the paymasters; and although at the beginning of the scheme it was necessary for a short period to make advances from Government funds in order to get the schemes started these advances have been repaid. The Committee will notice in the Estimates appropriations-in-aid in respect of £700,000 estimated in this financial year. These sums come from
the local authorities and will be repaid as the work is being carried on. The scheme is that the local authority is supposed to have the money before the scheme is started, and the money is repaid as the work proceeds. It may be asked why I am asking for a Supplementary Estimate of £200,000. The reason is that there are overlapping periods. After the local authorities have received the approval of the Goschen Committee for their loans, their housing bonds or the various forms of raising money, it takes some time for the actual financial transaction to take place, and it is estimated that this £200,000 will form a kind of floating balance to enable schemes which we have now in hand to be carried on in the interval. It will, of course, be repaid ultimately by the local authorities concerned in the schemes, and will not in any sense be a burden or a charge on the Treasury. It is a temporary banking arrangement to facilitate the rapid progress of the work.
It has been found that my office has been able to intervene usefully in a considerable number of schemes where tenders proved either very difficult to obtain or were unreasonably high. The actual procedure has been that of direct labour, supervised by the technical advisers of my Department, and I am glad to be able to say that this gives work in a very satisfactory manner. We have had in practically every instance the active co-operation and help of the trades and labour councils in the districts, and also the trades unions, and I wish to take this opportunity of expressing, on behalf of my Department, gratitude to the various building trades unions and the trades and labour organisations for the very hearty way in which they have supported us, which has enabled us to obtain labour. They have also been prepared to assist us in training labour for the various schemes, most of whom have been ex-service men.
4.0 P.M.
The percentages of trainees and apprentices by trade union operatives among bricklayers are as follows: Camberwell, 13 per cent.; Finchley, 10 per cent.; Carshalton, 10 per cent.; Bedford, 15 per cent.; Shoreditch, 20 per cent. Among carpenters the percentages are as follows: Camberwell, eight per cent.; Finchley, 14 per cent.; Carshalton, 15 per cent.; and Shoreditch, eight per cent.
On these schemes we have solved to a small extent a problem which we hope to succeed in solving to a much larger extent throughout the building trade. Up to the present time schemes have been put in operation in fifteen areas, five of which are London boroughs. The total number of houses to be completed under the schemes is 2,236, and the estimated cost when the schemes are completed is £2,200,000. There are negotiations in progress with local authorities in reference to about twenty schemes, and on these schemes work will be commenced when the financial arrangements have been made by the local authorities. Those schemes relate to about 4,000 houses. There are further negotiations pending for an additional number of houses, but it is impossible to say now when the schemes will be commenced. Those pending negotiations relate to 6,000 houses. That makes a total of 10,000 houses. As the schemes are still under negotiation, it is impossible to give anything but a very approximate estimate of the cost, but roughly the Committee may take it that it will be about £1,000 per house, that figure covering the roads, sewers, and other services of that kind. That is about as good an estimate as I can give. It does not follow that every house will cost £1,000; some will cost less and some cost more.

Mr. REMER: Have any of these houses been completed?

Sir A. MOND: A small number have been completed. At Poplar a certain number have been handed over to the local authority.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: What number?

Sir A. MOND: I have not the number. At Camberwell 28 have been handed over out of 290, and it is estimated that of the remainder half the total will be occupied by March, 1921.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the rent?

Sir A. MOND: I have nothing at all to do with the rent. It is for the local authorities and not my Department to fix the rent.

Mr. STEVENS: Is the right hon. Gentleman doing this work for the local
authorities as an ordinary contractor at a fixed price, or is he allowed to do what he likes and charge what he likes?

Sir A. MOND: If the hon. Member will find any contractor who will take any contract at a fixed price, I should be obliged if he will mention him to me.

Mr. SUGDEN: I will send you some names.

Sir A. MOND: A fixed price subject to fluctuations in labour and material? That is not a fixed price. We do exactly the same thing.

Mr. REMER: What is the cost of the 28 houses which have been completed?

Sir A. MOND: I have not the figure, because I do not think the cost has yet been worked out. Most of these schemes have been begun only recently, and therefore the number of houses completed is very small. In nearly every case our price has been about £200 less per house than a contractor's price. I am very confident that when the final results are reached our costs will compare very favourably indeed, in fact, will be lower than those of the ordinary contractors. One of the reasons why we were asked to undertake this work by the Minister of Health and the local authorities was that they had found it difficult in many cases to get anyone to tender at all, or to get a reasonable tender. We are not getting the easiest jobs in the country; on the contrary, we are getting the most difficult. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do you take them on!"] Because the Government decided that we were to do so. We want to get houses built, for housing progress is deplorable. If any Government Department is able to give any assistance, because it has the necessary technical ability to do the work by direct labour, it would be criminal for that Department not to make every possible effort.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are you doing this work to your full capacity?

Sir A. MOND: We are increasing our capacity as the work increases. What the ultimate result will be I am not yet in a position to state.

Mr. STEVENS: Have the Cabinet given any consent to this undertaking?

Sir A. MOND: I am astonished that an hon. Member should ask such a question. I have just said that my Department is carrying out this work on the decision of the Government. The Government is the Cabinet, as my hon. Friend ought to know. Does he imagine that a Government Department undertakes work like this and all that is involved, without a Cabinet decision? It is the most extraordinary observation I have ever heard an hon. Member make. I have explained, generally, the position, and I have gone into it in perhaps greater detail than was required. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"!] I am merely dealing with a Supplementary Estimate, but as this is a new Vote, in the sense that I have not yet had an opportunity of explaining it to the Committee, I think it only right to put the Committee as far as possible into possession of the general facts. As to the financial side of the arrangement, we are acting really as agents for local authorities and we are incurring no financial liability as far as the taxpayer is concerned. This money is all repayable, and there are careful safeguards which provide that the schemes are not embarked on until the money is forthcoming. We do not proceed with any scheme except at the request of a local authority and with the approval of the Ministry of Health, which naturally checks the scheme in its details and expenditure. The final upshot will be that the property will belong to the local authorities in exactly the same way as if they had done the building themselves under the supervision of their own surveyor or of any firm of architects or contractors whom they chose to employ. We are really acting as a kind of public utility society where we think we can be helpful. I hope the Committee will sympathise with the nature and the difficulties of the work we have undertaken and will give us this Vote.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend is one of the best business men in the country when engaged in private affairs, but when he comes to deal with Government matters he makes a statement which, if it referred to the affairs of private life, would lead any firm, however rich, into bankruptcy. I really do not, even now, understand all the ramifications of his explanation. What I did gather was that the Office of Works is the
agent of the local authorities. The local authorities are controlled by the Ministry of Health. Surely the Ministry of Health is a Government Department. Therefore my right hon. Friend is acting as a second intermediary for one of his colleagues in the Government, the Minister of Health.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not?

Mr. LAMBERT: I will come to that; I am not going to shirk anything. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this undertaking has been authorised by the Cabinet. As to that, I would like to ask, is there really Cabinet Government to-day?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly.

Mr. LAMBERT: Do all these matters come before the full Cabinet, or is there a home Cabinet, in which one Minister is, so to speak, oiling another's back?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is the Office of Works that instructs the Cabinet.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend says it is his business to get houses built, but is it his business to get houses built at any cost? These houses are going to cost £1,000 a piece. If so, that means something like five times pre-War prices. My right hon. Friend tells us that his is a very economical Department, because it constructs houses at five times the pre-War price! I ask him, as a business man —we must appeal to the business men of the Government—have they ever considered at what price these houses should be let?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really appreciates the point of this Estimate. The Government has decided on the policy of building houses at current cost and letting them at less than an economic rent, but that does not affect this Department. The only question here is whether the Office of Works should have built the houses under the authority of the local authority.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that if a supplementary service is a new service, one is entitled to discuss the whole question of policy embodied in it. If, as it seems to me, this is an entirely new service, we are entitled to discuss the policy.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is perfectly right. This is a new service, and he is entitled to discuss the whole policy which is concerned in this Vote, but not the policy which is concerned in the main Vote of the Ministry of Health. The Office of Works is only acting as agent in this matter. The policy whether it should be allowed to do so or not is fully open to the Committee.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it not possible to discuss, as the right hon. Gentleman was apparently about to do, whether these houses can be an economic proposition to put before the Committee in the present Estimate? I can imagine that a great many Members who have got in their minds the point which the right hon. Gentleman is about to raise may feel inclined to vote against the Estimate on that ground. Surely it must be open to the right hon. Gentleman to persuade us that the policy of his Department, which is the policy of the Government, is a sound policy economically. Otherwise, I do not see any means by which the Committee can judge as to how its votes should be given.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The question of the housing policy, and the burden that may be thrown upon the ratepayer and the taxpayer, was decided earlier in the year as the main policy of the Government. The question that arises here is the position of the Office of Works as a private contractor under the local authority. That is the point.

Mr. LAMBERT: I know that your rulings are always fair, but may I suggest that you cannot quite take the Office of Works as being agent for the Ministry of Health? The Office of Works is a separate entity, and need not engage in this unless it thinks right. My right hon. Friend says that he has engaged in this matter at the request of the Minister of Health, but he himself is a free agent, and therefore it devolves on him to defend his Department on the question as to whether he is building houses which can be let economically. As he is a free agent you cannot put him in the position of a contractor. If he did not do this work, nobody could compel him to do it; but as he has done it, he is responsible for the consequences. The Minister of
Health could not give my right hon. Friend orders.

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee has full power over the right hon. Gentleman. The Committee is quite entitled to say, "We will not vote this money and the Department shall not be allowed to do this work," but not to re-open the full housing policy which was discussed on the Bill that was passed, and on the main Estimates of the year.

Mr. LAMBERT: I will not do that, but in my judgment my right hon. Friend did not take prudent action in building houses without knowing at what rent they could be let. Has he done it at the direct request of the Minister of Health?

Sir A. MOND: My right hon. Friend entirely misunderstands my position. I have acted as the agent of the local authorities, and not of the Minister of Health. The local authorities come to me and say, "We have got a building scheme; will you kindly carry it out for us?" If I ask Messrs. Trollope to build a house for me, they would not be interested in the amount of the rent. If the Camberwell Borough Council asked me to carry out a building scheme, they would have to settle the rent I am not interested in that. Therefore, I do not know what rent they will be able to obtain. All I am interested in is providing houses as cheaply as possible, and I think that I have succeeded in obtaining them cheaper than in any other way.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend says that he acted as agent, and if Messrs. Trollope were to build him a house they would not be interested in the rent. But Messrs. Trollope's estimates do not come before the House of Commons, and those of my right hon. Friend do, and we have got to see that he is spending public money properly.

Mr. IRVING: You are taking a parochial view.

Mr. LAMBERT: Some of us who have a great deal more experience in Parliamentary matters than my hon. Friend—

Mr. IRVING: Get on with it!

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not make interjections. If he wishes to contribute to the Debate, he will rise later on.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can these houses be let at an economic rent? My right hon. Friend says that he is only acting as an agent. This is an amazing position for a Government Department to be put in. It is difficult to discuss it within the rules of Order, but we have never before had, in my experience in the House of Commons, a Government Department coming down here and saying that they are not responsible for the money they spend, and when I am told that we are the guardians of the public purse, I do want hon. Members to realise that if there is extravagance in public expenditure, whether by ratepayers or taxpayers, it will fall upon those who have got to get their living by manual or intellectual work. Has my right hon. Friend got his money from the local authorities? Where did the local authorities get it from? If they have borrowed it, from whom did they borrow it, and has my right hon. Friend got it?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, I have got all I have spent.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend is going in for 10,000 more houses.

Sir W. DAVISON: We are very much in the dark. If the right hon. Gentleman is acting as agent for the local authorities why is Parliament asked to Vote this money?

The CHAIRMAN: I observe that the hon. Member was not in his place when this point was being explained by the Minister. The Minister explained that it was necessary to have a certain floating account because the money did not always come in from the local authorities at the same time that the payments had to be made. Perhaps the hon. Member will get a further reply on that question afterwards.

Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend does not give us what he would give us were he acting in his private capacity as a business man. He has not given us the real estimate of his activity. He is acting as an agent. I agree that that puts a different complexion upon it from a Parliamentary point of view, but I protest against a Government Department acting as the agent for a local authority. I protest against this extension of Government Department activity into the building trade. To come down to the root principle. In my judgment the
Government never have and never will execute public works economically. My right hon. Friend with all his experience cannot point to a single work where economy and efficiency have gone side by side with Government expenditure. All the Government expenditure which we had during the War was extravagant. My right hon. Friend has got his Department, and a huge swollen Department, I have no doubt, and he wants something for them to do. Of course we shall never get these Government Departments down unless we persuade the Ministers that these gentlemen who want something to do at the taxpayers' expense can be got rid of. I know also that my right hon. Friend is subjected to great pressure, and that there will be great pressure put upon him by all the officials whom he has got in his Department to carry out all sorts of schemes all over the country. But that is not the way to keep down public expenditure. We shall never get public expenditure down until Ministers say to their subordinates in their Departments, "I am very sorry we cannot go on extending these Government activities." There is no official in the Government service to-day who cannot suggest innumerable opportunities for his usefulness, but you will never reduce Government establishments by that. You will never bring economy into the public service by acting like that.
I feel so strongly about this matter that I shall vote against my right hon. Friend's Estimate. I do it on the ground of public principle that we must reduce Government activities. I know it will be painful. The Prime Minister said in his speech last night to the Federation of British Industries, "Look out, there will be a good deal of screaming." There has to be a good deal of screaming if we are to get back to rigid rules of public finance. When I say these things I hope my hon. Friend on his side will really understand that I am doing so in the interests of labour and of the men who have got to get their living, because it is upon them that the consequences of this large Government expenditure will fall. I hope that the House will read, not to my right hon. Friend personally because I have a very high respect for him, but to this policy of a Government Department acting as the agent for the local authority which in its turn is agent for another Government De-
partment, a very severe lesson, and I trust that the Committee will reject this Estimate.

Captain COOTE: I do think there is a very important question of policy involved in this Estimate. We have to decide whether the Office of Works shall perform functions which at its inception it was not authorised by Parliament to perform, or undertake an entirely new kind of work such as was never contemplated when it came into existence. The Office of Works originally, as I understand, was appointed to look after the care and upkeep of public buildings and for nothing else. If this Committee decides that in future the Office of Works is to step in where municipal authorities and private enterprise have failed to provide an essential for the community then well and good, but the Committee ought to do so with its eyes open and ought to realise what it is doing. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said about the number of individuals who are being employed by the Office of Works in the prosecution of this new policy, I endeavoured to make a few inquiries yesterday as to what exactly were those activities, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. I would like to point out that originally in the Office of Works the gentlemen who were appointed to assist the Minister in all matters of construction and upkeep were surveyors and not architects in any sense of the word. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what amount his Department is spending in its architectural department to-day, because I think the Committee will find, if he is able to give that figure, that it is a very large sum. I maintain that is not a proper function for the Office of Works. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some better reason than we have yet heard why this Committee should authorise him to continue this work of constructing working-class houses, which apparently he has embarked on and already performed without the previous sanction of this House. We have the clear choice whether we are going to authorise the Office of Works to step in, for the convenience it may be I am quite ready to admit, of local authorities and become contractors at a time when we all
had hoped that the building of houses would go back eventually to private enterprise, or whether we are to restrict the Office of Works to its original, economical, and necessary functions. It is quite a different thing if the Office of Works is to become a convenience for bodies outside Government Departments, and if the Committee authorise the provision of this money it should understand clearly what it is doing.

Mr. MYERS: In listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lambert) I came to the conclusion that he permitted his indignation in connection with this matter to run away with his judgment. He based his criticism on many different points, some of which were contradictory. I do not think any hostile criticism can be sustained on the ground of economy in national expenditure, because it has been established, I think, that the money that is raised is raised locally, and for a necessary and essential purpose which is recognised by all parties in this House. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should reduce public activities. I venture to suggest whatever differences of opinion we may have as to policy few people will be got to admit that it is necessary to reduce public activities to-day in the direction of housing. We have got to recognise and accept that it is necessary and useful work which must continue by some agency or another. I want to put an exactly opposite point of view from the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. As one somewhat interested in this matter I am prepared to say that this is the one bright spot in the whole of our housing policy. Here we have had local authorities confronted with numerous difficulties. The first difficulty was that of being unable to secure contractors, and sometimes when tenders were received they were altogether unreasonable and out of all proportion to prices generally recognised even in these days. Then local authorities also found themselves up against the difficulty of securing materials. It is well known, and by people in this House, that many of these building materials have been cornered and the prices put up by various trusts and combines which placed them out of the reach of many local authorities, and owing to the quantity produced they have not in some instances been able to secure any at all.
Here is a case of a Government Department which can put its hand on materials in considerable volume being asked to come to the assistance of local authorities and to do the work without the intervention of outside agents. I am afraid it is here where the chief trouble is to be found. This public authority, without asking for tenders from any outside agency, put their hands on material and go in and do this work and ease the local authorities in their burden. All the evidence is in the direction that they are doing this work well and as well, if not better, than many of the other housing schemes in the country. They are building houses and employing skilled labour continuously and with little or no disputes, and good and efficient work is being done. At Camberwell they have 115 bricklayers at work, 60 carpenters, 8 plasterers, 6 plumbers, 5 painters, and the rates of wages recognised in the trade are being paid, and the report states that there has been no stoppage on the work and all difficulties have been settled smoothly. Materials have been secured by the Office of Works and the work is proceeding. The Office of Works recruit their own staff and exercise their own supervision, and in every detail have complete control of the work. Surely we are not going to condemn a Government Department which can exercise as effective supervision and can get the work done as reasonably as under a private contractor [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] An official report has been issued in connection with this Camberwell scheme, which states there can be no question by the execution of this work by direct administration with sympathetic labour the progress is excellent and the scheme will be economical and rapid in execution. The standard of building is very good throughout. It must always be recognised that direct labour work requires the closest knowledge of organisation and a most careful supervision and control. That has been secured in this scheme, and, so far as I can express an opinion, I would hope, not that this work should be restricted, but that it is work which should be extended in the various parts of the country, and that the Office of Works should not weary in well-doing, and in eliminating all those agencies which are really stopping house building owing to excessive cost of materials, high tenders,
profits, and all these things, and the cost of internal fittings. If any Government Department can take hold of this work and eliminate all those factors, which are plundering the community in this direction, they ought, I submit, to be encouraged, and not retarded, because it is going to interfere with the profits of contractors.

Captain S. WILSON: The economy of the Labour party.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The First Commissioner of Works gave us to understand that he was acting in this matter as the agent of the local authorities and also as the agent of the Minister of Health I do think when he has been requested by the Minister of Health to undertake this very important work that the least we might expect is the privilege of the presence of the Minister of Health in the House in this Debate. It is quite evident questions are going to arise turning very largely on the amount of rent. The First Commissioner told us that he had nothing to do with the question whether there was going to be an economic rent for the houses his Department built, and that that was really a question for the local authorities. It is also a very large question for the Minister of Health, and it is one which has been discussed over and over again on the Ministry of Health. Surely it is enormously important before we agree to give the right hon. Gentleman this money for these houses that we should be able to make up our minds whether they are going to be let at economic rents. The Minister of Health is the only member of the Government who can tell us. I submit before we go on with this Debate we ought to have the Minister of Health here to deal with this question and to satisfy hon. Members. You, Sir, have decided that this is an absolutely new service. It is a new service, and a very grave and important departure. I think my hon. Friends of the Labour party are very glad to see this new departure, and from their point of view they must necessarily be very pleased because it is a question really of nationalisation in the building trade. The First Commissioner told us that this scheme is going to be very largely extended, and he has not got up to ten thousand houses, and probably has in the back of his mind the erection
of a hundred thousand houses. We shall all be delighted to see a hundred thousand houses, but it is quite evident in my mind that the Office of Works in future is practically going to undertake the whole of the building that comes for local authorities. That is an entirely new departure and by it you are practically giving the whole of this building trade into the hands of one of the Departments of State.
I should very much like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks he will be able to do this as cheaply as local authorities can do it by employing ordinary contractors? I know he is interested in buildings at various places at some distance away from London. Has he got a plant on the spot belonging to the Office of Works? Has he a building plant at Bedford, has he one at Chester-le-Street, has he one at Richmond in Surrey? Is he going to transfer the building plants of the Office of Works from various parts of the country all over the place? If so, it seems to me that this is going to lead to enormous cost, for surely it is cheaper to employ a plant on the spot than to go up to some centralised place in London and have the whole of your plant transferred from there all over the country. In regard to the question of the £200,000, I understand according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the whole of this sum is going to be refunded at some time by the local authorities, and therefore, he will say, there is no permanent Exchequer money expended at all. There is no Exchequer money on this page at all. The local authority is not responsible for anything over a penny rate, so that if the right hon. Gentleman in building these houses builds up to a sum which goes over the penny rate, the whole of that added expense will fall upon the Exchequer. Therefore, how can he know that no money will fall on the Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman said that the costs had not yet been got out for the completed houses, but everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the best business men in the country, and I cannot conceive that in his private business he would say that the costs could not be got out for completed work. If he carries on business in that way, the whole of his business would have gone smash years ago. I should very much like to satisfy my mind that there
is not going to be an enormous cost eventually falling upon the public Exchequer in regard to this building.
The right hon. Gentleman also said—but he did not prove it—that his Department would be able to build much more cheaply than ordinary contractors. Of course he would if his Department are not working under the ordinary rules and regulations of the Ministry of Health, and I should like to know whether the Office of Works are going to be bound up in the same red tape as the Ministry of Health have imposed on ordinary contractors and local authorities. Naturally, if the Office of Works are free to do as they like, independent of the ordinary regulations, they can build more cheaply. Anyway, I do not think we have had nearly enough information on this subject, and I suggest that the Minister of Health ought himself to be present and give an explanation with regard to this policy.

Mr. REMER: I should like to join in the protest which has been made against this Vote. I should think there is not a single hon. Member who heard the speech of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) who did not realise that this Vote means nothing but mere socialism in its worst principles. I should also like to impress upon the Committee the point which was elicited from the right hon. Gentleman during his opening statement. He gave his estimate for these houses at £2,200,000 for 2,000 houses, which comes out practically at £1,000 a house, and although 28 houses have been completed, he is utterly unable to give any estimate whatever of what these 28 houses are going to cost.

Sir A. MOND: I said I could not give the actual figures at the moment.

Mr. REMER: I think it will be very interesting to know what the estimate is. I happen to know about one of the particular sites where they are going to at present, in my own constituency, which I have seen, and there they are going in because the contractors' prices are supposed to be so high. They are high solely because of the very difficult position of the site, and before we go on with this Vote I think we ought to have some considerable information from the Minister of Health. It is most unsatisfactory to come down here and have to deal with these figures in his absence. Last night
we had a speech from the Prime Minister in which he told us he was in favour of economy, and it looks as if that was mere words when we come down here the next day and have gross extravagance of this kind brought before us. I shall certainly go into the Lobby against the Government on this point, because I think they have no mandate whatever for any such scheme, and I wish to enter my strong protest against this kind of Vote being put before us.

Sir W. DAVISON: I have just taken the trouble to telephone to the Borough Council of Kensington, for whom the right hon. Gentleman has been doing some work during the past year, and I am told on the telephone that the completed figures have only been received from his Department in one instance, although frequent applications have been made. I asked what the result of the expenditure in that particular instance was, in order to see whether the work had been done in a cheap and businesslike manner, and I was informed that in regard to this particular matter the estimate, which was submitted to the Borough Council, and was accepted, amounted to £1,018, and that the actual cost which has now been returned—and this is the only case where they have been able to get the figures—amounted to no less than £3,300.

Sir A. MOND: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what he is referring to?

Sir W. DAVISON: It is the case of a house in Bassett Road, Kensington, so I am informed on the telephone, which was converted by the Office of Works into five flats, and the estimate, I am told, which was given to the Borough Council was £1,018. That was agreed to, and the actual cost of the completed work was £3,300, or more than three times the amount of the original estimate. It only shows how very unsatisfactory work done by Government Departments is, and what I think is equally unsatisfactory is that, although they have done a considerable amount of work in Kensington at the request of the Ministry, in no other case are there any final figures available. I was amazed, on telephoning to the Council office, to hear that they had only got the final figures in this one case. The whole procedure of this Estimate seems to me to be very irregular. The right hon. Gentleman
says he is acting as the agent for a local authority. This House has conferred on local authorities very considerable powers in connection with housing under certain safeguards. The Chairman pointed out an explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, but in effect we are asked, apparently, for some floating sum of money to be given to him until such time as he recovers the money which is due to him from the local authorities. As he has only submitted his accounts, so far as Kensington is concerned, in one instance, and there are a large number of houses which have been completed, and for which the accounts ought to have been sent in long ago, it looks likely to cost the country in interest a considerable sum. I cannot be a party to voting money to a Government Department for carrying out works which had very much better be done by private contracts.

Mr. HOGGE: There are two parts in this Estimate, which I think we ought to look at separately. There is, first of all, the question of policy which is raised by this new service. I can understand an hon. Member who supports a Socialist type of Government supporting this Government, which is not a Socialist Government, in setting up a Socialistic scheme to deal with housing, but it seems to me that the House is too frequently asked to debate a new principle and a new theory on Supplementary Estimates. This is probably the biggest new principle that has been submitted to the House this Session, and we have present no responsible Minister beyond Departmental Ministers. This is a question of policy for which the First Commissioner of Works should not be made responsible, and either the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be present in order that the House should have an expressly stated view from the Head of the Government as to whether this is the policy or not. I am not for the moment quarrelling, and I hope I shall not quarrel, with any of my Labour Friends behind me as to the merit of their views as against mine, but if we agree to this, it means that all the local authorities in the country and all the private contractors who serve the local authorities will finally be roped into a new building Civil Service.

Captain S. WILSON: That is what they want.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not want anything my hon. and gallant Friend wants, except perhaps an old despatch box, but let us follow out logically the principle of this Estimate. If you agree with the policy, very well, and if you do not agree, very well, but do not let us carry it through in a Supplementary Estimate. That is the real point. Even my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works does not know what he is doing, and I should very much like to know really how far he does know that he is going on his own figures. He said he had 2,236 separate houses now in hand, and that these houses were going to cost £2,200,000. Then he said he had 4,000 more. Are those firm, or are they not?

Sir A. MOND: The construction of them has not commenced. Some of the orders may be cancelled.

Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend has got 4,000 in the offing. Then he said he has 6,000 more. Where are they?

Sir A. MOND: They are in the distance.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: He has 2,000 firm, 4,000 in the offing, and 6,000 in the distance. That is exactly where this policy will take the Government. For those who believe that this is not a good scheme the whole future is going to be imperilled. I do not want to argue that, because I think it is better to leave the merits alone in view of the far bigger point I have put, that the Government has no right to do this thing in this way. It may be a good thing, but that this national service should be worked by the Government, and that every man employed in that service should be a Government servant, in receipt of Government pay and a Government pension, may he an ideal which some people believe in, but I do not. Whether I believe it or not, this is not the way to do it. What encourages me to say this is that those who were in the last Parliament have a very vivid recollection of what the Government attempted to do in the way of building houses and other things during the War. Somebody behind me says they did it very successfully. At Chepstow, for instance?
[Interruption.] We are not talking of munitions. We are talking of building, and I am giving a parallel case—the buildings at Chepstow. I am not even talking of the cost of building ships. What I am talking about at Chepstow is the cost of building houses.

Sir A. MOND: I did not build them.

Mr. HOGGE: No, of course you did not build them, but some of your friends built them. The Government built those houses, and we know exactly where we are in that matter. Mr. Whitley has debarred us from discussing directly the question of the economic rent of those houses, and therefore I am debarred from saying more about them than that I cannot for the life of me see why the average ratepayer, who has got to endure the conditions which lie to his hand, should have to shoulder the burden of more favoured people. That is all I can say about the economic position, though I am very much tempted to go into greater detail. My right hon. Friend told us the cost of these houses was, roughly, £1,000 each, and I think he said he was building them for £850.

Sir A. MOND: Some.

Mr. HOGGE: Some of them. My right hon. Friend must tell us what the houses are that he is building for £850—the size of the houses, and the accommodation, as compared with houses which are being built outside. I know of houses that are being put up at less than £850, even including the Government subsidy. We are not going to be fobbed off without that information. When my right hon. Friend estimates for these houses, does anything go down in respect of overhead charges for his Department? What portion of his salary which he draws from the State is credited to the cost of these houses?

Sir A. MOND: My salary is so small it would disappear.

Mr. HOGGE: My right hon. Friend and the whole of the officials under him draw a large amount of money from the State in salaries. Is any of that money debited to the cost of the building of these houses, or is the £850 simply the cost of the material, bought in the cheapest market, and often in the most expeditious way, not open to other people? He has to prove that to the Committee, even if
we agree to him building houses under this scheme. For these reasons and many others which we need not go into this is, perhaps, the most unsatisfactory supplementary estimate which has been submitted to this House, and this Committee will be very unwise if it agrees to it, and I for one will vote against it.

Mr. STEVENS: It seems to me that this Committee is asked to commit the House of Commons to an entirely new policy, the policy of the nationalisation of the building trade, and without any reason, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is only acting as agent for the local authorities, an agency which any firm of contractors would readily undertake under like circumstances. He has not told us how much of his overhead charges, how much of the hundreds of thousands of pounds which his Department is costing the State, is charged to the local authorities, and whether any of it is included in this £850 per house. I do not want to repeat what has been said already, but I wish to know whether the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the House is aware that this new policy is being brought before us in this way.

Mr. R. GRAHAM: There seems to me to be no reason whatever to offer any severe criticism against the Ministry on this Estimate, either for wastefulness or extravagance, unless the accusations are supported by evidence. I suggest to hon. Members who have submitted a number of questions in their speeches this afternoon, questions which it seems to me have been designed to serve as criticism, that they might have ascertained the information before this Debate opened, and, having obtained the information, have been able to say whether the Minister has done his work in a satisfactory way or otherwise. The hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) has questioned whether the Office of Works can construct the houses more cheaply, or whether they will not construct these houses at a higher price than is charged by ordinary builders under contract. There is in this House a considerable number of business men, and surely they either know, or could easily ascertain, whether private builders can build houses of the kind that are being built by the Minister as cheaply as the Minister is doing. There is no excuse for coming here with an implication that the Minister
is wasting public money, or that he is incompetent to do the work, without better evidence than has been submitted to the Committee. It has been suggested that the Office of Works is in a fair way to develop into a building civil service. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the work that has been done by the Building Trades Joint Industrial Council and of its aims and aspirations. The principal aim of the Council is so to organise the work of building that the industry shall become an industry devoted to public service, and I ask hon. Members to recognise that that is a far higher aim than any aim declared by any other industry in this country. If that is the aim of the building industry of the country, as represented by the Building Trades Joint Industrial Council, there is surely no very wide difference between that combined aim of employers and workmen and the scheme that it was suggested by the hon. Member on my left (Mr. Hogge) might ultimately be developed by an extension of the work of the Minister before us.

Sir A. MOND: I think it would be convenient to the Committee if I took the opportunity of dealing with some of the points raised during the discussion. I must honestly confess that when I came down to the House with this very modest Supplementary Estimate for £200,000 I was surprised to find myself suddenly accused of being a Socialistic Minister. Had anybody ever told me that I should come, to be called that, I should have looked at him with amazement. This very small, modest, temporary scheme for solving a very urgent social problem has been elaborated, developed and exaggerated in the most fantastic and ridiculous manner I have ever heard. We are even told that the Office of Works is going to do all the building in the country. You have a Building Programme for 500,000 houses, and out of that number we may possibly build 10,000, and yet this is the colossal principle, the enormous departure, something so terrible that hon. Members of all parties, of the most divergent views, and the most hostile political opinions, all unite! If one had not been used to a good many years of parliamentary discussion one would really think there was something in all this; but, of course, there is not. Really, my Department are acting in this matter not
with the boundless ambition which the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert) so eloquently described. It is said that I am a Minister presiding over officials anxious to over-work themselves and to sit up day and night, that I have not the strength of mind when at the head of a Department not to employ incompetent officials. It really seems amazing for hon. Members to get up and say, "We all recognise that in private life you are a competent business person, but because you are a Minister of a Government Department"—and it is as efficient body as any I have ever had under me—" I am entirely incapable of carrying out the building of 250 cottages." I am not in the slightest in favour of the Government undertaking work it is possible to avoid. Neither I nor my Department have any desire to be burdened by these troublesome cottage-building schemes; but, after all, let the Committee reflect how far we are behind with our building schemes. Let them go down to their constituencies and say that by their vote they are preventing the building of houses.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: That is not a fair way of putting it. It is against the policy.

Sir A. MOND: What other policy is there? The policy is that a Government department is going in to take up housing schemes which cannot be carried out, and to get them carried out quickly and cheaply. If this Estimate is not passed, these Housing schemes will not be carried out, and all these people will not have houses to which to go. That is the logical and definite result of opposing this. If it were a proposal to take over the whole housing schemes of this country, and to do away with private builders, that would be a great new policy and I should not be in favour of it. That is not what I am asking for, nor is anybody asking for it. On some of these schemes contractors are being employed. We have no desire to do work which private contractors can do, but this is work which can be done more economically and conveniently by the Department. I will give a few details. In the case of Pontypridd, there was a tender for £1,098; our estimate is £904.

Mr. STEVENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of one of the houses which have been completed?

Sir A. MOND: I do not think that would be of very much value, and it would not help the Committee at all. The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that you want a scheme complete before you can get the actual cost of the houses. Hon. Members will remember that these figures include roads, sewers, and many other things involved in the laying-out of a scheme. I have no doubt the figures can be got out. Speaking from experience, I may say that we are not so bad at estimates as hon. Members may think. I have been sometimes surprised at the extraordinary accuracy of our estimates. Let me give a few variations of figures. Here is a tender for Llantrissant, £1,100, and our figure is £975 on the same basis. I have many more figures which show that these local authorities are being held up by unreasonable costs. That is why the local authorities in these cases have come to us to do the work. There is no doubt to anybody who has been following the matter that there has been a deliberate attempt to reap exaggerated profits in the building of these houses. Take the case of smaller authorities, who have not got the same facilities, and have not the capacity for doing this work which large corporations have. We would not dream of building for the London County Council or the Liverpool Corporation, or other big authorities, and nobody suggests that they are not capable of doing the work. We are helping a number of small public bodies, which, hon. Members know perfectly well, have not got the organisation or the staff to carry out large building schemes, and that is really why we are doing it. We are not laying down any enormous new principle, and I hope the Committee will see we do not lay down any new principle. I admit we are acting in the capacity of an agent for local authorities. I do not suppose any Government Department has ever before demeaned itself by rendering such service of public utility. I dare say that is new, but if the work is required and the Department can do it efficiently, and I say, speaking with twenty-five years' experience, we can do the work efficiently, then it would be a great wrong on our part as a Government if we did not undertake it.
Hon. Members have talked about the economical side, but does any hon. Member remember any of these housing
schemes which have been economical propositions, because I do not. I always understood that it was accepted by this House that in these building schemes we were not dealing with the economic question. The question here is, Will the houses built by my Department work out more expensively than those built by private enterprise? That is the whole question. From the best information, and to my knowledge, I have every reason to anticipate that they will be cheaper, and I am very much encouraged in this by the experience I have had in another branch of the work of my Department which has adopted direct labour as against tenders. It may interest hon. Members if I give some cases in which work can be done more cheaply by Government Departments than by giving it out to private tender. Repairs had to be done to a wall, and the lowest tender sent in was for £2,225. The actual work carried out by direct labour cost £832. [An HON. MEMBEE: "The same work?"] Yes, and better. [An HON. MEMBER: "Including material?"] Including material. Here is another case, the lowest tender being £1,597 and the actual cost for the work by direct labour £980.

Mr. STEVENS: Any overhead charges?

Sir A. MOND: Yes. You can have all the overhead charges you like; it will not make a difference of £600. I could quote a large number of other cases. I do not think it unnatural. I do not claim any great credit. I think these cases are bound to occur. I am not arguing that Government Departments always do work more cheaply, but I do contend it is equally unreasonable to lay down the general principle that it is quite impossible for any Government Department, well-equipped, well-staffed, and well-managed, to do its work with as great intelligence as private contractors.

Mr. J. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why, if these figures are correct, there should not be an extension of the scheme on a national basis?

Sir A. MOND: I will give the hon. Member one of my reasons. I think you would get an organisation so vast that it would be impossible to control it, and you would not get an efficient result.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the annual cost of the Department?

Sir A. MOND: I have taken that into consideration. The annual cost of the architectural staff is very much lower than that for which you could get any private works to take the work on. I have figures to prove that that is the case. As a matter of fact, I had great doubt on that subject before going to the Office of Works. When I was a private Member I had an idea that the cost of working the Department would be very high for the work done, but, as a matter of fact, it is altogether different. The figures which I have had an opportunity to examine convince me that quite the reverse is the case. I have been asked as to how we handle the building plants in the schemes which are going on in various parts of the country. We deal with this matter as an ordinary builder would, and put them in the most convenient places. As I have told the House, these houses are being built under the supervision of, and with the approval of the Ministry of Health, and the type of house is that which costs us £880 and contains a living room, a parlour and three bedrooms. [An HON. MEMBER: "Any bathroom?"] I do not know.
Really, I think a good many hon. Members do not appear to be aware of the cost of building at the present time. One hon. Member queried whether I really realised that the cost of these things was now five times that of the pre-War period, and that a house costing previously £400 to £500 now costs £1,000 or more. At the Office of Works we are only too painfully aware of the difference. The tenders for houses seem a large figure, and a large figure per house, but, looking over the figures given to local authorities, and in connection with London County Council schemes, they work out very much about the same. That is to say, from £880 to £l,100 per house, according to the different types. Then one hon. Member referred to a conversion scheme which we undertook for a borough council. The borough council were themselves unable to undertake the work, and that was the only reason why we undertook to do it. Then we have people telephoning about it! I can tell hon. Members, who may not be aware of it, that the conversion of these houses
into flats is one of the most difficult and unpleasant jobs anyone could undertake.

Sir W. DAVISON: That is exactly why we have protested against the conversion of these houses. We were forced into converting these houses by the Ministry of Health. The work was put upon us, and we were obliged to accept the offer of the Office of Works to do it—much to our annoyance. The Minister was unable to go into details as to the cost in his statement. I took the trouble to get hold of it. I state frankly I got the particulars from the Town Hall. I am a Member of the Housing Committee, and I am aware in general terms of the very great additional cost, and the very large amount by which the Estimate of the Office of Works has been exceeded. What I wanted to get was the precise details, and I obtained them on the telephone. I have informed the House of what I have done.

Sir A. MOND: The hon. Gentleman might have informed me, so as to give me the opportunity of meeting the attack. This kind of conversion is always a very difficult operation, and you cannot give a close estimate. I hope I have succeeded in fairly well covering points put to me. This policy we are pursuing is a temporary policy only—not a permanent one. I contend that the House has every reason to be satisfied with the way the work is being done and the cost of the work, and certainly I shall do all I can to push forward this most urgent problem of getting the people housed.

Mr. FRANCE: I am afraid I have been a Member of this House too many years to be much impressed, excepting in one regard, by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly was impressed by his Parliamentary art in endeavouring to laugh out of court the criticisms which have been addressed to him on this subject from every quarter of the House, except from the Labour Benches opposite. He tried a course at which I was rather surprised, and that was in adopting the suggestion that those of us who sincerely wished to see the right line adopted in these matters are unsympathetic towards the building of houses in this country. It is, I think, hardly necessary to assure this Committee that some of us who feel it our duty to speak on this subject are
as keenly anxious as is the right hon. Gentleman himself or any Member on the Benches opposite, and have perhaps been engaged in as many efforts to assist housing conditions and to bring about better housing conditions as the right hon. Gentleman. Some of those who are as sincerely determined to try to see that this great evil of the lack of houses is remedied yet feel, as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh put it so well, that in this purely innocuous and small Supplementary Estimate there is a very great principle involved.
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was brought to a finish by the usual Front Bench platitude that of all the Departments of the State, whatever the others may be doing, the Department of the right hon. Gentleman is "the" Department, and that there is nothing worthy of criticism in regard to it. But surely the question is: Can these houses be built better by the local authorities or by his Department? I would only ask one question in connection with this, or put one point: If the right hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the Government Departments can do so very much better in this respect than, not the local authority, but the local authority working in conjunction with private enterprise, why in the name of Heaven does not he hand his own business over to a Government Department? He is far too wise a man for that, and—if I may say so—far too successful a man to attempt such a course.

Sir A. MOND: I would if I were the head of the Department.

Mr. FRANCE: With great respect, I shall believe that statement more fully when I see the fact. May I point out to the Committee that no one can suggest that those of us who feel that this is a very serious matter, not to be left— we do recognise and always have recognised that there is already in existence building schemes—this is only one small feature—are indifferent in any degree to the necessities of the case. There already have been vast schemes which we support, schemes of municipal housing, and under the inevitable circumstances of the case, and in view of the emergency and need of the times, helped by national effort and from the Exchequer. But this goes much further. It has been recognised, and the House has decided—and I
think everyone must admit that the country has decided—that these schemes are to go on hand in hand with private enterprise so as to encourage and help those who have been engaged in the building trade in the past. If they are profiteering, if they are charging too much, every possible measure should be taken against them, and I should wish to see it done. If the Ministry of Health had been a little more energetic and determined in this matter they might have taken steps to see that these evils were overcome. The only ground, said the right hon. Gentleman, upon which this could be defended was the cheaper method which he adopted. If I may say so without any offence, I did hope when he came down to the House to-day to hear something more. The right hon. Gentleman does not apparently regard this as a very big matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite so well informed on matters in connection with these schemes as he might have been in view of the importance of the thing. He does not know now whether he is going to put up buildings or finish these houses more cheaply than can be done by private enterprise. Therefore we have not even evidence on the very points under discussion. There is one point more I want to put, and I want to put this point forward without any suggestion of an unfriendly feeling towards those who hold entirely different views to myself as to the advantages of nationalising this trade of house building, or any other trade. It is all very well to say that this is only a small item and that there are only 20 local authorities involved. But I do want to suggest to the Committee that it may be—I do not say it is, but it may be that in some of these local authorities there is a majority in favour of the nationalisation of the building industry.

Mr. CAIRNS: Hear, hear.

Mr. FRANCE: Yes, it may be so. In some cases perhaps it is not so. To say that all the building of this country is eventually to come under the control of the State—well, if that is so, it is perfectly natural that those concerned would wish to come to a Government department and prove, if they can prove, that under the very exceptional circumstances of the time, the Office of Works can more successfully carry out a scheme than a
local builder can. But may I point out what an unfair advantage is given to the Office of Works. The Office of Works are not going to the Treasury permanently for a few hundred pounds. They are collecting the money for the time being and lending it to these local authorities who have difficulty in raising money. Therefore they are really financing schemes which under present circumstances are difficult to finance, and they are making it easier for the local authorities to compete with private enterprise. If there is anything in this idea, any motive on the part of those who first of all invited my right hon. Friend to be come their agent—I do not say an unworthy motive, but a perfectly honourable motive that they believe in the system— that by going to him they can get money-borrowed and collected which they otherwise would not get, and that the House of Commons will endorse that, then it is not to be wondered at that they will want the Office of Works to take up their schemes and carry them out.
I would warn the right hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to become a socialist, whether he wishes to adopt nationalisation methods in the building of houses or not, it is inevitable if you make the conditions so unfair, and the advantages so great towards these particular schemes, whether they cost more or not, you will inevitably have the tendency towards the drifting of the whole system of building into Government hands. That is a decision which I think the House is not prepared to take upon a Supplementary Estimate of £200,000. Therefore I do very urgently appeal, with every desire to see housing hurried on, that as Members of this House we have not had sufficient evidence from the right hon. Gentleman that he is doing the work better than anyone else, or that the work could not be carried out without his assistance, or whether, indeed, he should embark upon such a large enterprise on such insufficient grounds.

Mr. W. SMITH: I have listened to this discussion with a great deal of interest, and, really, it is surprising to find hon. Members in different parts of the House apparently angry because houses are being erected. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Withdraw!"]

Captain S. WILSON: It is absolutely untrue.

Mr. FRANCE: Try not to be offensive.

Mr. SMITH: I thought my observation would not be very acceptable to hon. Members opposite, but how any other explanation can be given of some of the statements made here to-day in condemnation of what the Office of Works have done I am at a loss to understand. I agree with what has been said that it is difficult to call to mind any discussion where there has been greater exaggeration and misrepresentation than that which has taken place this afternoon. To listen to some of the speeches one would have thought that the Office of Works was a terrible body going about all over the country compelling local bodies to accept its services in regard to the construction of houses, that the local authorities named in the Estimate are not possessed of any judgment as to what is best for their own localities, and that the Office of Works pounces down upon them and compels them, against their own wishes, to accept its services in the direction of this Estimate.
I am surprised at the criticisms that have been made. When I take my mind back to the demands made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what the Government intend to do in the way of housing and the ex-soldiers, I am surprised to hear the criticism forthcoming now that the Government have extended their services in that direction. You must bear in mind what is taking place in different parts of the country. Houses are being seized and occupied by soldiers. [An HON. MEMBER: "And a good job too!"] Is that what hon. Members wish to see continued, or is it not better to develop housing schemes to provide houses for them to live in so as to prevent the necessity of conduct of this description? I understand that local authorities are anxious to develop housing schemes; they work out their plans in conjunction with the Ministry of Health and then they find either a difficulty in getting them erected, or the estimates submitted are of such a character as to warrant them considering other methods of construction. Anyone with any knowledge of local bodies in regard to this question of housing know that gross profiteering is taking place, so far as contractors are concerned, in the building of houses. The question of economic rent is being raised when as a matter of fact the economic rent would be higher under private
enterprise than is the result of the system which has been adopted. The interest of hon. Members in the workpeople who will occupy these houses is mere pretence, and the real ground of objection on the part of hon. Members here to-day is because this means the breaking down of vested interests. That is the real objection in the criticisms which have been made this afternoon, and the pretence that it will cost more is not borne out by the facts.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) made some wonderful accusations against the Department about gross extravagance, ignoring entirely the statement made by the Minister that one experience of the Department was the carrying out of some work for the Board of Agriculture which, according to the estimates and the prices submitted from other sources, would amount to £1,100, and it was actually completed by the Office of Works for £800. Further figures have been submitted to us, all of which show that the work done by this Department gives a better service and better results in the end than what has been accomplished in other directions. I can quite conceive that if the Office of Works had been asked to meet the difficulties with which local authorities find themselves confronted, and they had refused to lend any assistance, there would have been much more criticism made against them. In my judgment the whole basis of this criticism against the Department is because they have taken action which breaks down the ring surrounding the building of houses. Some hon. Members have asked what right has this Department to do this work, just as though we were not passing through very exceptional times in regard to housing which amply justify the Department in rendering every service it can to enable the country to meet its difficulties.
So long as we can be assured that the full charge is being entered up and that no expense is falling upon the national Exchequer — we do not want any camouflaging of the position in that respect—so long as this Department is properly crediting all the expense to these schemes, and the local authorities are satisfied with the services of the Office of Works, this House has no right to raise any complaints as to the activities of this Department in that
direction. I think it is to their credit that they have come to the aid and assistance of local authorities in the building of houses. When we reflect upon the effect which this shortage of houses is having upon the national life at the present moment, when we think of two or three families living in one house, crowded together and jeopardising the future of this country from the standard of the manhood and womanhood of the people, when the Department is criticised for giving services to help the country out of that condition of things, it is astounding to find criticisms in the direction I have indicated, and no wonder some of us are tempted to believe that the real reason is the gross profiteering which is going on by a vested interest so far as housing is concerned.
In my own locality the estimate for the building of houses amounted to £1,005 each. In the contract there is a clause which entitled the contractor to add to his estimate any increased cost of labour or materials during the course of construction. The price of materials has gone up since that time, and two advances in wages have taken place. Although it is true that the specifications have been somewhat modified, those houses have been built for £900 each, or £105 less than the contract, in spite of the increased cost of materials and an increase of wages that has taken place on two occasions. Just the same thing happened in Wiltshire, where the local authorities have built their own houses by direct labour, and where they have given the best conditions of labour to the men employed, even to the extent of guaranteeing them a full 47-hour week, full pay for holidays, and other concessions, and yet there has been a saving on building there to the extent of about £200 per house. Until hon. Members opposite can substantiate their charges they have no right to oppose the activities of the Office of Works in assisting public bodies to construct houses which are so badly needed by the people of this country.

Mr. PERRING: I wish to point out that the exception hon. Members are taking to the policy of the Office of Works has no connection whatever with what has been referred to by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Member alluded to the building of
houses by direct labour, and if they can build them cheaper than anybody else in that way I welcome the opportunity of them doing so. In the early part of this year the Ministry of Health, in their anxiety to make some sort of a show with regard to housing, sent representatives to visit most of the metropolitan boroughs, and they endeavoured to coerce those boroughs into converting a number of houses which were out of date. Some local authorities were not prepared, having regard to the local knowledge they possessed of these houses, to undertake this work, because they realised it would involve a very heavy loss. In the Borough of Paddington we were urged to hand over 20 houses to the Office of Works, and we objected, but as an experiment we handed over one, and what was the result? In this case it cost £1,000 more to carry out the work than the estimate which was given us in the first place, and what would have been the loss if we had agreed to 20 houses? In this one case we were involved in a loss of £200 a year on the economic rent which falls on the local rates. I object to the principle that the Ministry of Health, acting with the Office of Works, should coerce any local authority to have certain work done, and then throw the charge, if there is a loss, on to the local authority. Under the Housing Act we were led to believe that the charge would only amount to a penny rate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member must go into that question.

Mr. PERRING: The principle is the same whether it is one house or 100, and, thank goodness, my borough only had one house done in this way. I submit that this is a wasteful and extravagant method of dealing with the problem. In the particular house I have mentioned I have taken a concrete case, because the last speaker suggested that we were making statements without evidence. May I point out that the hon. Member himself had not very much evidence to place before us on the question we are considering. I am stating these facts because I think hon. Members should know of these cases. This is concrete evidence of what has happened, and what is likely to happen again. I think it is the duty of hon. Members who have had experience of this
kind to bring instances before the House so that we shall not give our sanction to a continuation of a policy which is not only wasteful and extravagant, but which throws further heavy burdens on the rates when that burden should be thrown on the National Exchequer.
6.0 P.M.
Why was it that in the particular case I have cited the house cost more? It was because the work was done under the old wasteful system of the cost sheet. As far as we can judge, the men engaged on it did not put their backs into the work in the same way as they would have done had they been working for a contractor. It was done at a price, and they hung it out as long as they could. That is the policy which is dominating the men who are working under this system, and I think it is important we should bring it before the House, because, if it is allowed to go unchallenged, there may be an extension of the system, and presently, instead of being involved in thousands of pounds, we may find ourselves involved in millions of pounds. We are only concerned now with the money involved in a certain part of the programme of the Office of Works. We have not been told of the work which has been carried out for which the local authorities have paid the money. We have not had a full account of the operations of the Office of Works in respect of this housing business, and although the right hon. Gentleman has referred to two estimates, there is no evidence of any kind that in any, barring these two odd cases, the work has been carried out at a cost below the estimate submitted. I do not think, when speaking of a large sum of money, it is sufficient to quote two isolated cases as a justification for a large expenditure.
It usually follows that in a large number of schemes there may be one or two cases where the Works Department may have done the work much cheaper than was estimated, but I should like to hear in how many cases the work has cost more than the estimate. That would be more enlightening to the Committee. We do not know the circumstances of these two particular cases; if we knew the facts we might form a different opinion to that of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not suppose that he himself knows the facts. They are given to him, and, while he is an exceedingly able man of business, I doubt
even if he would claim that all the work of his Department is done with equal success. I venture to suggest that large sums of money have already been and will in future be wasted on this policy which the Committee should condemn, and I am glad of this opportunity of calling attention to a concrete case where, it is true, the money involved was not large, but where it would have been much larger had it not been for the forethought and commonsense of the borough I represent.

Major NALL: It is a curious thing that the only support which the right hon. Gentleman is getting comes from those in this House who are concerned with people in the country who, more than anybody else, are doing their best to restrict building; who are doing their best in every possible direction first to restrict the number of the men who are working and next to prevent any more men being employed in the industry. I am not going into the figures of this Vote. I can quite appreciate, as I am sure the Committee does, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works is not really responsible for the principle behind this question. It is the old story of the Ministry of Health. This is the socialism of that Ministry being dished up in another form, and the Minister responsible for it conveniently keeps out of the House because he knows perfectly well that his presence on the Front Bench would immediately arouse the suspicions of many hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman's only justification for a speech which did nothing, to my mind, to convince hon. Members of the correctness of this procedure was that he mentioned one or two instances where the estimates of his Department were some 20 per cent. below those of private contractors. But he had nothing to say in regard to those cases where the estimates of his Department were exceeded three times over in the cost of the work which was actually performed. If that principle is to be applied to all building work actually performed, and if the cost is to be three times more than the estimate, what is the good of telling the Committee that in one or two instances the estimate was 20 per cent, below that of private contractors? All this arises from the present stagnation in the building trade.
When we are considering whether we shall vote this money for this particular way of building, we must have regard to the fact that the only alternative to this sort of thing is to restore the building trade to a basis on which private enterprise can find full scope. This policy of the Ministry of Health is all linked up with the socialistic conspiracy to retard the provision of houses. We have on the one hand the building trade union pre venting the absorption of more labour into the trade. We have on the other hand the Ministry of Health, in the powers which it already possesses and which it is seeking to obtain in another Bill under consideration upstairs, pre venting building enterprise, obstructing the proper development of the building trade, and preventing proper scope being given to builders. The Ministry is seeking in that Bill to interfere with and prevent the proper development of the building trade, and until we can get the building trade back into the position it held ten years ago—

Mr. J. JONES: Good old contractors!

Major NALL: —into the position it held ten years ago, when it employed 50,000 more men than it employs to-day, we really cannot get a proper move on with the housing question. These proposals of the Ministry of Health play into the hands of agitators in the country. There is nothing more responsible for the discontent in the country to-day than the shortage of dwellings, and that is why hon. Members on the Labour Benches support any scheme that will prevent the building of houses. This discontent is the most fertile ground they can find for the pernicious doctrines so many of them preach, and it all arises from the shortage of dwellings. I for one shall oppose this Vote, not because of the amount involved, but because it is part of the socialistic policy of the Ministry of Health, and I appeal to hon. Members not to be led away by the explanations of the First Commissioner of Works, but to have regard to the fact that this is a part of the socialistic policy of the Ministry of Health, which is playing the game of those who want to retard building, and are doing their best to prevent the development of private enterprise.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works, is thoroughly well
satisfied with the position he occupies to-night. It must be a source of great delight to him to find he has the support of hon. Members on these Benches who are out for the destruction of private enterprise in the building trade. I must say I am surprised and, perhaps, a little disappointed to find the right hon. Gentleman lending himself to a piece of humbug and camouflage such as this Vote discloses. This Vote is part of a series of measures and of Votes which have already run a considerable length and which will continue to run until the Government either of their own accord or because they are forced by this House, show a little intellectual honesty and admit that their housing scheme is one of the most ghastly failures the world has ever seen.

Mr. JONES: You are one of them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that we are discussing this particular Vote and not the general policy of the Government.

Mr. HOPKSNSON: May I submit that we are entitled to discuss the origin of such a Vote as this, seeing that it is really symbolical of the industrial policy of the Government. Might I not be allowed within reason to discuss the origin of the Vote as part of the Vote itself?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The origin of this particular Vote is with the Office of Works which asks to have this money voted to enable it to carry out this particular housing work. But it would not be in order to discuss the origin of the housing policy of the Government, or to go back to that.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I suggest that the Minister responsible has to justify this Vote to the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not now discussing the duties of the Ministry of Health or the housing policy generally. If we were the Ministry of Health would be here, but the Minister in charge of the Office of Works is here and it is only his Department with which we are now dealing.

Sir F. BANBURY: Am I not right in thinking that this is practically a new service which authorises the Office of Works to exercise a function which it has never before undertaken. In these circumstances would it not be in order to discuss
whether or not it is right for this House to grant any sums or particular sums of money for this particular purpose. The question of the housing policy of the Government is of course more general, but I submit it would be in order to discuss whether or not it is advisable to grant to this particular Minister the sum now asked for.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Baronet is perfectly correct. This is in that sense a new service. For the first time the Office of Works is undertaking direct building under the Housing Scheme. It is not open to hon. Members to go back on the whole housing policy of the Government as embodied in the Housing Act on this Vote.

Mr. HOPKINSON: My point is this, the First Commissioner of Works is asking for a very large sum of money, and he has therefore to justify this Vote. We who wish to criticise this particular policy are entitled, I submit, subject to your ruling, to question the principle and the origin of this particular Vote. According to the White Paper this is "Provision for expenditure on erection of houses undertaken by the Office of Works as agents for various local authorities proceeding with housing schemes approved by the Ministry of Health." I submit I am entitled in discussing this to present our views as to the processes which have rendered this Vote necessary. I was saying, Mr. Whitley, before you came in, that I was rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman lending himself, and his reputation for sound business acumen, to this camouflage and this fraud upon the public. I was going to point out, when I was called to order, that this Vote is one of a series of Votes and a series of legislative measures which have become necessary owing to the refusal of the Government and the refusal of the House of Commons—which is just as much to blame as the Government in this case —to admit the obvious and complete failure of their housing policy. As the Committee is well aware, the House has been called upon again and again to throw over all its political principles in order to bolster up that policy, and now we find the right hon. Gentleman involved in a scheme of pure socialism with a view to bolstering it up again. The Minister of Health has discovered what, perhaps,
many of us knew before, namely, that when a Government Department or a municipality goes into any market—not only the building trade market but all markets—it immediately gets fleeced right and left by the people concerned.

Mr. J. JONES: By the profiteers.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The hon. Member who spoke last from the Labour Benches (Mr. W. B. Smith) talked about rings in the building trade. Of course there are, and always have been, rings in the building trade when Governments and municipalities were concerned. At the present time it is notorious that those rings are stronger and more pernicious than ever, and we have to investigate the causes of that. To anyone who has been engaged in industry the cause is clear. It is perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I think he will admit it. It is that, where you have a limited market in any commodity, whether it be labour or material, and when into that limited market is introduced a customer with unlimited funds, determined to buy whatever the cost, then you get that complete corner and system of rings which puts up the prices as it is putting them up at present week by week. During the greater part of last year building costs were extremely high. They were high, in the first place, because wages were high. Wages were something like 2¼ to 2½ times what they had been before the War, and that, of course, correspondingly increased the cost of building. Then there was—induced, presumably, by the world-shaking events of the past six years—a certain amount of laxity, for which one cannot blame the building-trade. In addition to that, there was in many trades deliberate restriction of out put—not accidentally, but as a matter of policy, carried out under the supervision of "walking delegates."

The CHAIRMAN: That would lead us greatly beyond the present Vote. The hon. Member will please confine his argument to the question, whether or not the Office of Works is to be permitted to undertake projects of this kind in lieu of local authorities, or of local authorities acting through contractors.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I bow to your ruling, but I think you allowed me, by implication, when the point of Order was raised before, to deal with this ques-
tion on the lines that I have been taking. I was unaware that I had infringed your implied ruling.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the question of restriction of output comes in on the present occasion. Up to that point the hon. Member was quite right, I think, in building up his argument—I suppose against the Government acting in lieu of contractors.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I am afraid I did not make myself very clear, but the basis of my argument was that the interference of the Government, whether as a builder or as a supplier of the funds for building—as the Ministry of Health is—results in every case in higher costs.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's second point is covered by an Act which was passed by the House, and we cannot now go back on that. His other point is quite in order.

Mr. HOPKINSON: My submission is that, in dealing with a Vote which is not of the ordinary kind to which we are accustomed in Supplementary Estimates, inasmuch as it is an altogether new departure in policy, a little more scope might, perhaps, be left in the Debate than would be usual in the case of ordinary Supplementary Estimates. We have seen by experience the result of the entry of one Government Department into the building trade and providing public funds for builders and contractors. The result has been that building contractors and operatives in the building trade have made a very good thing out of it indeed at the public expense. It was really by way of analogy that I was bringing in these facts which have come under my own observation, in order that I might bring that analogy to bear on the main argument in regard to this Vote. We know that a man employed by a Government Department on manual work is the most inefficient workman that it is possible to employ. I myself have had the privilege of serving in the ranks of the Army, and in that capacity I have done a great deal of manual work—digging trenches, unloading coal wagons, sweeping out barrack rooms, and many other things; and my experience is that it always takes at least three times as many men to do any job in the Army as it would have taken had those men been working for a private employer.
The reason, of course, is obvious. Men will not work properly for a Government Department, because they know that they are the master of their employer, and that cannot be avoided in a country constituted as ours is. What happens when the Government takes over the railways? Immediately every man engaged on the railways does less work than ever he did before in his life? What happens when the Government starts controlling munitions? Everyone on the munition trade—both masters and men—becomes extremely prosperous, and the wretched, unfortunate taxpayer has to pay. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman proposing, I suppose under very severe and unavoidable stimulus—I will give him the benefit of that—to put one of the most difficult trades into the hands of a Government Department—for, when all is said and done, the building of small houses at the present time is one of the most difficult operations that any trade has to perform. It is difficult to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, because we all know that it is the last thing that he would possibly think of if he had only himself to consult. If he wished to build a village or a town, would he, under any circumstances, dream of going to the Office of Works? No, he would build it himself, and so would any other sensible man. We have the spectacle here of one of the most capable supporters and exponents of the system of individual enterprise linked hand in hand, in peace and affection, with my hon. Friends on my right. It is a spectacle to make angels weep, and certainly to make taxpayers weep. It is a very serious matter indeed, for, if the House passes this Vote, how is it ever to resist again similar proposals from other Departments of State?

Mr. J.JONES: That is the trouble.

Mr. HOPKINSON: That is the trouble. My hon. Friends on my right have, unfortunately, not quite realised the fact that the method of dealing with national problems which is embodied in this Vote has, during the last two years, been thoroughly well tried on the largest possible scale, and under the best possible conditions for success. The authority to whom I am referring in this connection is M. Lenin. The chief difference between M. Lenin and his friends here on my right is that he is a man of extraordinary intellectual
honesty. He is a man of great determination who has followed the principle of this Vote to its logical conclusion, and then has had the courage to admit that he has failed. This Vote, in the long run, involves the nationalisation of another of our industries, and the nationalisation of an industry involves consequences of which my hon. Friends on my right have no conception whatever. Apparently they are not aware of the facts that I have just stated. They do not even know, perhaps, that their friend M. Lenin has laid it down both in speech and in writing—

The CHAIRMAN: So far the hon. Member has been quite pertinent to the Vote, but we must not travel as far as Russia.

Mr. HOPKINSON: In dealing with a very mixed Committee such as we have now, it may be desirable to use these little devices of parallel and analogy, which may appeal to some intelligences more directly than plain statements of fact. The point is that the right hon. Gentleman is supported in this proposal by one section of the Committee, and one section only. Therefore, I think it is the duty of those of us who believe that they are mistaken, to do our best to explain to them our reason for that belief, so that they may have the opportunity of thinking over the arguments on both sides, and deciding accordingly as to how they will vote. Therefore, I felt that I was justified in using an historical analogy, in order that my hon. Friends might get a real conception of what I was endeavouring to explain, and might, possibly, see the point of view of hon. Members on both sides who do not agree with them. I was endeavouring to explain what the ultimate result of this policy must be—the nationalisation of an industry—and in order to explain that, I introduced the consideration of an object lesson which is plain to the whole world, and that object lesson is this.

The CHAIRMAN: Really, if the hon. Member is to travel over the whole world we shall never get to the point. If the hon. Member will only direct himself to the point.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I was on the point of coming to it. The quotation I wish to impress on hon. Members on my right is—

The CHAIRMAN: I have tried to guide the hon. Member two or three times. He must now follow my guidance. He must remember that I must allow replies.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I will endeavour to explain my meaning in another way. We are perhaps going rather far abroad in this discussion, but we have the example, during the "War and since, of the Ministry of Munitions, which was practically nationalisation, and there again we got exactly the same thing, the defect of nationalised industry, the Government stroke. Those of us who had the opportunity of going into large armament and munition work during the War, and those who had experience of that trade, were singularly impressed again and again with the astonishingly small amount of work which was being done in munition works. I am referring, of course, to day work, and necessarily in the building trade all this work proposed to be done by the right hon. Gentleman will be done on day work and time rates and not on piece-work. In the case of the Ministry of Munitions we found, as we found in Government dockyards, as we found in the Post Office, as we found in every industry in which men are employed direct by Government or municipalities, that the work done is a small proportion of the amount of work which would be done for private employers. The reason is evident. It is that the man is master of his employer. The right hon. Gentleman himself is only here by the suffrage and permission of a very large number of manual workers, and he is in that unfortunate position of having to control men and order them about, possibly even to dismiss them from his service—the very men who put him in the position of being their employer. To my mind, in spite of all that may be said from these Benches on the right, that is a difficulty round which there is no way whatsoever. No matter how ingenious the method, and no matter how much compulsion is brought to bear on the manual labourer, as long as he is working for a Government Department or a municipality he cannot be expected to get through as much work as he would for a private employer.

The CHAIRMAN: After half an hour, I think the hon. Member might come to the point. He sees it all the time, but he is quite unable to arrive at it. Ten
minutes ago he told me he was coming to it, but he does not show a sign yet.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I may be mistaken, but I fancy I have come to several points already. I will not press it further, although it is really the foundation of the whole of our objection to this Vote, that we are asked to vote away money for nationalising an industry which, less even than any other industry, is susceptible of success under nationalisation.

The PAYMASTER-GENERAL (Sir J. Tudor Waiters): It is desirable to call the attention of the Committee to the question before it. We are not in this Vote the least bit concerned with any general policy of nationalisation of the building industry or the erection of houses by direct labour. We are concerned simply with what has happened in an emergency. In connection with the Ministry of Health's housing policy, certain local authorities, chiefly in London, being seized with the importance of carrying out certain very urgent housing schemes, have found it almost impossible to secure contractors who were prepared to undertake the work owing to the fact that so many contracts were available and such very high prices were being asked that the local authorities felt they would be too high and the delay would be too considerable in carrying out these urgent works in that manner. Therefore the Ministry of Health had to consider, in view of the urgency of the provision of these houses, what was the best course they could adopt. It was obviously not desirable for the Ministry of Health to set up a Building Department and having another Government Department, a very highly organised Department, accustomed to carrying out building works, it became a question for consideration whether purely, as a temporary measure in a time of national emergency, the Office of Works should be asked to undertake the erection of some of these houses. How did they go to work? In some cases they had tenders from contractors which were obviously too high. They prepared their estimate and they found they could not in fact carry out certain building works at a lower price that the estimates which had been submitted to them by private contractors. They have not carried out all this work by direct labour. In some cases work has been done on a schedule by contractors who, by open tender, are
contractors for the Office of Works. One or two very large firms of contractors tendering to the Office of Works are Government contractors for the time being on a definite schedule and a definite percentage of profit.
I myself, having to alter a house that belonged to me, took advantage of the schedule of one of these contractors working for the Office of Works, and I was able to alter that property at a price very much below the lowest tender I received in open competition. The very firm that did that work for me on a certain schedule of prices has done a portion of this work for the Office of Works at the self-same schedule of prices. I am not accustomed to pay more for building work than I am obliged to pay, and I am not entirely ignorant what is a fair price to pay for putting up houses or converting houses into flats. Therefore, I say this method of, in some cases, employing their regular staff of builders, bricklayers, and carpenters under a thoroughly competent highly-trained organisation, and in other cases employing contractors on a schedule of prices by open competition to the Office of Works, has, in fact, carried out these undertakings in less time and at a lower price than could have been done in the ordinary way. I am not the least bit in favour of any general policy of nationalisation of building. I desire at the earliest possible moment to see the resuscitation of the ordinary methods of building by private enterprise, which I believe will mean more rapid and more economical building. I state that, which is not part of the subject under discussion, to show what is my attitude of mind. Very emphatically regarding that as my policy, I am still entirely satisfied that for the immediate necessities of the case, for the urgent and temporary work of carrying out these jobs, the policy pursued by the Ministry of Health in delegating work is a sound policy. In fact, if any hon. Member will give careful examination to the details of this work which has been done he will find it compares very favourably with anything which could be done by ordinary tender and ordinary private contract.

Mr. PERRING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why one house they converted in my borough of Paddington cost £1,000 more than the original estimate?

Sir T. WALTERS: It is not an unusual thing for an architect's estimate to be exceeded. Although I do not know the facts of the case, I might throw some light on the reason why that house may have been more. I have found that when contracts have been made for converting houses into flats and the work has been commenced, the local authority still says, "That is not what we want. We want something a great deal more than is provided in. the schedule." Therefore there are considerable additions and alterations and a remodelling of the scheme, with the natural result of extra expense. It is my opinion that the work that is being done by the Office of Works in these particular cases for which this Vote is asked has been done on an economical basis, and is, in fact, cheaper than any other way in which the work could have been done. I am quite satisfied when we get to normal times, when we have the ordinary competition of the market, and when it is not the case that local authorities are asking for tenders all over the country, we shall get work done at a lower price even than the Office of Works could do it. But in the present emergency, while contractors have so many opportunities of getting contracts at very favourable prices, I believe it has been a good policy, it has tended to steady the market, and has resulted in real economy. Therefore I suggest that the Committee should grant this Vote.

Mr. T. THOMSON: The Committee must have noticed that, comparing this Debate with previous Debates, the critics who before complained that the Government had not produced houses are now the ones who are complaining that the houses have been produced. Surely there is a certain amount of inconsistency in such criticism. They cannot have it both ways. Moreover, this question of the policy of the Office of Works building houses is not put before the Committee for the first time. It was embodied in the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919, which this House sanctioned, and whose final reading was, I think, passed unanimously, and therefore the Office of Works is only carrying out that policy which this House has unanimously approved. The hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) gave us an interesting lecture on the forces of political economy,
and economics generally, with which, I think, we should all agree, but surely the whole point is that these forces of supply and demand operate under normal conditions, and that, just as during the War we had to disregard the ordinary forces of supply and demand because the conditions were absolutely abnormal, so the condition that was left in the industrial world after the War was equally abnormal, and it was necessary, as a temporary measure, to bring in forces which at other times would not have been introduced.
Therefore it is perfectly consistent for those who believe in private enterprise to realise that, as immediately after the War, it was impossible, owing to the abnormal conditions, to allow the free play of those forces, and, as in the War, it was necessary to bring in abnormal methods, it was equally necessary, to supply the tremendous shortage of houses which existed, to canvass every means that was available for increasing that supply, and it was only when the local authorities had found that it was impossible by means of ordinary tender in the open market to provide the houses which were absolutely essential to health conditions that they called in the Office of Works to supply the needs which private enterprise was at that time unable to supply. The Office of Works only steps in where local authorities themselves desire it, unless in exceptional cases the local authorities are in default, and then, acting under the powers given by this House under the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1919, the Minister comes in and using either private contract or the Office of Works carries out the necessary work. In the White Paper which we have before us the great bulk of the money which is there scheduled has been used by the Office of Works in doing those things which the local authority itself has voluntarily asked them to do. Why in many cases have the local authorities called in the Office of Works? It is because, owing to the abnormal conditions, there has been a ring of contractors who have put up the prices to an extraordinary extent to everybody, whether it be the municipality or the private builder, and when these prices were so abnormal the local authorities called in the Office of Works, who have been able to carry out the work at a less cost, and with economy to the nation,
than the price which was available at the time. Therefore, I hope that the Committee, realising the urgent necessity for these houses, realising that private enterprise for the time being has failed to supply the houses, will see that it is necessary for the Office of Works to do this work, and that they should be encouraged whilst these abnormal conditions continue to go on until the tremendous shortage, which is a menace to the public health of the country, is brought to an end.
The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) in a somewhat wide-sweeping way criticised the local authorities, and the workers employed by them. He said that it was well known that where you bad workmen employed by a local authority they did less work, and the cost of their service was, consequently, infinitely more. Those who have knowledge of, and are connected with, municipal affairs, know that the municipalities in regard to tramways, electric lighting and gas supply, have worked these services as economically, and in many cases, more economically—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] —than private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The figures which are published every year confirm the statements I am making. I do not wish to pursue the matter further. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Hon. Members may take it that I am not frightened to go into it; but I do not pursue it because it would not be germane to the particular point of the discussion. The hon. Member for Mossley having attacked the public service carried on by Government Departments or municipalities it is only fair to say that the experience of the great majority of large municipal undertakings is that they provide a public service at a lesser cost than private enterprise.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I listened with great interest to the very excellent speech made by my hon. Friend (Sir Tudor Walters) and I think he dealt very ably with part of the case, but I do not think he dealt with the main objection which is in my mind and in the minds of a great many hon. Members who have criticised this Vote. What he defended was the fact that the Office of Works had come in and undertaken this work. That is not the chief objection to this Vote. The grave objec-
tion to the Vote is not that the Office of Works is coming in simply as a contractor to do work for the local authority under the Housing Act and the housing grants which this House has already provided for that purpose, but that we are asked to vote £200,000. Why? My hon. Friend say that the Office of Works are simply taking the place of a contractor, and can do the work cheaper. Would a contractor have to find £200,000 out of his own pocket in order to do this work? I do not think he would.

Sir T. WALTERS: All the money that the First Commissioner of Works spends in this particular case comes back again. It is all part of general housing expenses. The Office of Works does not itself lose money on the transaction. It is temporarily out of pocket until the local authorities have raised their loans, and are able to make payments for the work that has been done on their behalf.

Mr. PRETYMAN: The local authorities are confined to a penny rate and the State has to find the balance. Are we to understand definitely from the First Commissioner of Works that he gives a definite undertaking that not one single penny of this £200,000 will eventually fall through this Vote upon public funds?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, certainly, I can give that undertaking. The whole of the method by which we are working now is that money is found by the local authority before we begin spending any money on the buildings. The local authorities raise loans either through the Public Works Loan Commissioners, or by housing bonds. We know that the loan is authorised and is going through. We know that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have sanctioned it, but the money has to be found, and there are technical difficulties of getting meetings of the Council committees, and other legal formalities which interfere perhaps for a week or two weeks before the money is forthcoming into the banking account. We want this £200,000 simply to carry on during these overlapping periods in connection with the work we have in hand. When we started these transactions we had to advance £150,000, but all that money has been repaid by the local authorities. This £200,000 is a kind of floating balance to enable us to carry on, and not one penny piece will fall upon the Exchequer.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am glad to hear that, and I am sure it is a satisfaction to know that not one penny of this £200,000 will eventually fall upon public funds through this Vote; but I do think it would have been very much more desirable if this Vote could have been avoided in some way or another, or if the money could have been found without the Vote. My objection still remains, and that is that it is a bad precedent for a Government Department to definitely undertake this contracting and building work for the erection of houses. I do not want to go into the question as to whether a Government Department gets its work done more cheaply than private enterprise. Perhaps we are inclined to go too far in accusing the Government of Socialism, or evil designs. I believe it is more thoughtfulness on the part of the Government than the fact that they really see how far their policy is likely to carry them. There is work that needs to be done, and every Government Department is always anxious to extend the scope of its work. It is a most mischievous policy which, in the interests of this House and in the interests of economy, ought to be prevented. A great deal of trouble arises from the fact that owing to the enormous pressure of new legislature which is thrown upon this House by the Cabinet, every Department is left to itself, and these proposals do not get full Cabinet consideration on their merits. There is no real opportunity of seeing how far the policy which underlies some comparatively harmless, proposal, which is suggested in perfect good faith by a Department to meet some temporary emergency, carries them. We do want more Cabinet supervision of these apparently small matters, in order that we do not give away a principle which this House values, a principle which is valuable, and ought not to be departed from, namely, that Government Departments should not undertake contract work of this kind.
I have had some little experience at the Admiralty, which is a very large employer of labour, and the general line followed in the Admiralty, and it is a sound line, is that repairs and maintenance are best carried out by your own staff, but if you want to do new work you had better get a contract for it. We had definite
tests as to the cost of building battleships in His Majesty's dockyards and in private yards, and definite tests as to the cost of repairs, and we found that we could get our battleships more cheaply built in the private yards, and our repairs more cheaply done in the dockyards. I do not think it would be right or just for it to go forth that this House is of opinion that work done by a State Department is necessarily bad. Some work done by workmen under State Departments is very good work, but there is a tendency if new contract work is undertaken by a Government Department that on the whole it is likely to be less cheaply done in the end than by private contract. It is very unfortunate that this particular work has been undertaken, and it would be very much better if the Government could withdraw this proposal, which has met with such grave objection from every side of the House, and find the money in some other way, without setting a precedent by means of a Government Department which is responsible for the general care and supervision of Government buildings. The principle upon which work has been done hitherto has been that the Department presided over by the First Commissioner of Works has a staff of architects who are responsible for supervising the work of other people who are contracting to do work for the State, and it is from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view a very bad policy that the one Department which has to supervise, and criticise, contract work and itself be competing by means of the very same officers with the contractors who are responsible for carrying out work for the nation. From that point of view as well as the other it is a very bad precedent. If these objections which have been in the minds of many hon. Members had come before the Cabinet they would have found some other way of keeping this money within the orbit of the original Vote which was passed, instead of bringing it into this Vote, and setting a bad precedent. I hope it is not too late to withdraw this Estimate, and although I do not vote against the Government on it, I cannot vote for it.

7.0 P.M.

Sir EDGAR JONES: I wish to say something on this Vote, because some local authorities in my own district are involved in the question. It would be a great misfortune if because of the tilting tournament this afternoon the Office of Works is induced not to lend its aid to local authorities for another 12 months. I ask the Committee to set aside the grave fears that have been expressed. I agree that it has been worth while to emphasise the importance of preventing this thing becoming permanent and making it perfectly clear to the Government that they must not launch out in this direction. Let us look at the position of some of the small authorities in the mining districts. They would never get houses built unless they got aid from London. We cannot get the work done. We have tried, but have failed, and as a result we have miners with no cottages, and heaven knows there is plenty of discontent among them for other reasons! The authorities, in despair, come up and ask that we should lend them some aid. It is not so much a question of price. The contractors there cannot get the materials and cannot get the houses built. You can build them because you have the control. The whole Committee agree that it would not be wise that this work should be done by the Ministry of Health itself. It would be still less wise for the Ministry of Health, for this emergency purpose, to create some new body to do it which had never done any building. Therefore I think it was very wise, under the circumstances. The circumstances were exceptional; we all regret them; the First Commissioner of Works himself does not like them at all, as he has said. There was nothing else to do, save to leave us in the lurch, with no houses, to wait until the clouds roll by or the place blows up. The practical point is, Are you going to leave these particular authorities—and they are not very many—and say, "Stew in your own difficulties; we do not care anything about them"? I do not think that that was the temper of the House when the Housing Bill was passed. I appeal to the Committee, having made it clear that, with the exception of the party opposite, we are unanimously against this being made a permanent policy, to let the Vote go through, on the understanding that it will act as a sort of leg-up to people in exceptional difficulties.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: There are two questions to which I should like a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. He has told us that this is a temporary scheme. He says that the whole of this £200,000 will be repaid, and that none of it will come eventually out of our pockets, except as regards the housing grant. Can he tell the Committee whether this sum will be repaid during the next financial year, or can he give us any year at all when it is likely to be repaid? These are days of great financial stringency, and if he could hold out the hope that it is only a loan to his Department for 12 months we might not feel so strongly against it. He foreshadowed the possibility of a further 10,000 houses being built by his Department. It may be that the hostility shown this evening may modify his ideas in that respect. If it is necessary to let him have £200,000 for 2,000 houses, then he will come down to us in a few months' time and ask for a super-Supplementary Estimate for £1,000,000, in order to finance the local authorities for those extra 10,000 houses which he admits he has in contemplation. I should like to know whether he will require further working capital for his housing schemes if he wants to build that extra number of houses?

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who spoke a few moments ago in defence of the Office of Works gave reasons why this Vote should be supported. He said it had nothing to do with direct labour, and that the only reason for it was that as the local authorities could not get contractors it was necessary to go to the Office of Works, who had already been able to obtain contractors. He also said it was a temporary measure, but I think he expressed disapproval of it, except as a temporary measure which would not be continued. The Committee has heard that argument over and over again. All these Measures that have been introduced during the last five or six years have been said to be for a year, or a year and a half, or two years; but invariably, as soon as that particular period has terminated, they have been extended for another year or two years. Therefore I do not place the slightest reliance upon the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this is only a temporary Measure. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Sir E. Jones), if he will excuse me saying so, has rather given the show away. He says the miners have no houses, or very few; that they are dis-
contented for various reasons—I suppose because they have got too much money— and he asks what will happen unless something is done to provide them with these houses. He went on to say that he was in favour of this Measure purely as a temporary one. So far as I understand it, this Measure is to build houses somewhere about London. It does not propose to build any houses in Wales, and there is nothing about Wales in the Vote.

Sir EDGAR JONES: We are unfortunately excluded, for the present.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is just my point. They are excluded, but the Welsh are a very persistent people, and they have very great weight with the Prime Minister. The result of this will be that a deputation from Wales, in which the hon. Member will probably take a prominent part, will attend on the Prime Minister, if they can get through the barricades, in order to point out to him that Wales must not be left in the lurch, but must be included. Thus, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, that this is only a temporary measure, at once falls to the ground. Let the Committee remember this. We shall go on. We shall be told that we have sanctioned the principle, and that it is absolutely necessary to do this and that. The Office of Works is a wonderful body, which has already, I think, agreed to restore cathedrals and to repair churches, so that there is no limit to the efforts which, under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman, it may endeavour to carry out. I cannot be accused of having any prejudice against the Office of Works, because I was the Chairman of one of the Sub-committees of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which had the privilege of investigating the operations of the Office of Works. It is true that it was done three years ago, but our Report was extremely favourable to the Office of Works. We said we thought that they were, on the whole, a businesslike body, which carry on its proceedings in an efficient and proper way. There fore, when I vote against this Vote, as I shall do, I cannot be said to be prejudiced against the Office of Works. If I have any prejudice it is rather in the contrary direction, because I am inclined to think, certainly in those days, that
the Office of Works did not do their work badly.
The reasons why I intend to oppose this Vote are as follow. I believe it is a bad departure, and a bad precedent. It is useless to tell me it is a temporary measure; it will tend to become a permanent one. The idea that it is absolutely necessary, because the local authorities cannot get contractors, falls to the ground at once. If the Office of Works can get contractors, so can the local authorities. The contractors who work for the Office of Works will be quite willing to work for a local authority. There is no particular object in working for the right hon. Gentleman, and in not working for any other honourable gentleman who may be a mayor of a local authority. I object to this, but I understand why hon. Members opposite are in favour of it. An hon. Gentleman who spoke a short time ago imputed motives to hon. Members on this side. He said they were regarding the vested' interests, and that they wished to support profiteering. There is no foundation whatever for the second of those suggestions. No doubt, hon. Members on this side of the Committee do wish to protect what sometimes are described as vested interests, that is to say, that everybody in this country should have an opportunity of earning an honest living if he can do so. I do not know really that vested interests go farther that that, unless it is said that you must not put your hand into somebody else's pocket and take something out. I have a vested interest in the money that is in my own pocket, and I do not want hon. Gentlemen opposite to put their hands into it. That is what I call a vested interest. Beyond that I do not want to go. With regard to the profiteering charge, everybody knows that in business some people are rather too greedy, and are not so particular as they might be in tendering a contract. Because, however, there happen to be a certain number of that class of persons in any given business, you have no right to say that the whole class is a profiteering class and does not carry on its business in a proper manner. I could, if I wished—I do not desire to do so—impute motives to hon. Members opposite, and with more foundation. I ask the Committee to vote against this Vote because it is the beginning of socialism. I think socialism is fatal. Hon. Members oppo-
site hold a different opinion. I do not quarrel with them; they have a right to their opinion, just as I have. I much prefer them to say straight out what their opinion is; I much prefer that sort of opponent to an hon. Member who calls himself a Conservative, but who votes for all socialistic legislation. This is the beginning of the State taking up the ordinary work which has been carried on by private people. It is the beginning of the State finding what is now described as a necessity, namely, houses. Why on earth should the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) suppose that by his interference at the present moment he will in any way expedite the provision of houses? I am not so sure that he is going to get that sum. In these days it is rather a large amount which has to be found from somewhere. It can only be found by somebody with a vested interest, who can lend it to the local authorities, who will repay it to the right hon. Gentleman. It is by no means certain that the local authorities will be able to get this largo sum. For the first time some years before Queen Elizabeth we had socialistic legislation of this sort, when the State interfered in matters on which it had no business to interfere. Now in what is supposed to be an enlightened age we are going back to the principle that we are to have no houses unless we get the right hon. Gentleman with the taxpayer's money to build them. I trust earnestly that the Committee will vote against this Estimate, and that the energies of the right hon. Gentleman will be confined to the restoration of ancient cathedrals and churches.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am unable to understand the speech which has just been delivered. The question which is strictly before the Committee is not a question of the nationalisation of the building industry or the introduction of a great scheme of ownership and control in the solution of the housing problem. If that were before, the Committee my reply would be that according to a very large number of Members of this House, irrespective of political party, it had been conceded that because of conditions obtaining after the War it was impossible to solve this problem exclusively by private enterprise. The point before the Committee is a comparatively small one, as to whether the Office of Works is to act for the time being within certain restrictions as the
agent for the local authority, and if hon. Members opposite who object to this proposal want to be logical they will object to the people who are really the principals in this transaction, namely, the local authorities, and will seek to stop altogether the enterprise of the local authority in the solution of the housing problem. That is the position and we are simply confronted with the question as to whether this departure of the Office of Works which may present some features of novelty—in my judgment generally speaking there is nothing novel about it— is justified in existing conditions. I shall not be accused of emphasising the importance of State Departments. While believing that an extension of public ownership is necessary, I believe that a solution will come about in this country, not through great public Departments centralised in London, but through the people of the locality on one side with guild organisations on the other. I say this merely to indicate that I am not tied to the particular proposal to which hon. Members object. But from experience of local authorities of this country some device of this kind is necessary.
Hon. Members opposite have repeatedly accused us on the Labour Benches of either speaking in complete ignorance of building conditions or in utter disregard of the country's interest. I am not complaining, but I ask hon. Members opposite who do know industrial conditions if these things are not true—in the first place, that those who have been connected with large local authorities know how very difficult it is to get offers at all, and, at the same time how very difficult it is to get offers where small local authorities are concerned. When we do get offers there is a very significant state of affairs. I have sat in Committee where these tenders are opened. There was a strange similarity in the figures. There was no doubt a desire that a certain contractor should get the contract. That as a rule happened and the price was in these cases comparatively high. Go right to the other side of the building trade, the side of the local authorities. Personally not directly, but indirectly, I happen to know it. Does any hon. Member opposite deny that for a single moment the builders of this country are at this time working in close association? No one would deny that. Hon. Members who attack our policy have admitted that the
rings, associations and combined effort in the building trade were never stronger than to-day. On that point I have every respect for the policy which has been pursued by the builders. I think it desirable that they should act in harmony and combination. I believe that it is going to help sooner in the solution of these difficulties. They want the contracts in localities to be distributed. They have made that statement publicly and privately. They have their regulations regarding prices, perhaps the closest and most precise regulations which have been framed by any employers' association in this country, far stronger, more drastic and complete than the regulations of the most extreme of the trade union movement. These regulations are in force. They are abiding by them and forcing up the price of contracts. If the Office of Works or any other public department can come along and get a job done more cheaply than it would be done because of the state of affairs which we all know exists, it would confer a great public advantage on the people in the solution of our housing difficulties. For all practical purposes direct labour is engaged only to a very limited extent in this controversy.
There is another question which is almost equally important. Why is it that some of the remote local authorities, and even in the cases of some of the larger local authorities, cannot get genuine bedrock lowest cut offers for housing schemes to-day? Ask any builder or contractor, ask the operatives who are serving on the Joint Industrial Councils and know this problem. The reply is that simply at the moment there are vast arrears of repairs to be overtaken. Repairs work does not involve for the most part anything like the anxiety of house building. It does not as a rule cover one-fourth of the time. It is as a rule promptly paid for by the people who get it done. It has not any of the risks and the chances of these housing schemes that extend over long periods. Contractors can get any amount of that class of work at present especially at the hands of people who have profited largely by the War. They can get practically any prices they like to name if they are consistent with reason at all. These things are directly influencing a solution of the housing problem, and I hope that
hon. Members will take these facts into consideration when we are deciding as to what after all is the effort on the part of a public Department in a restricted sphere to help in a time of difficulty. I am excluding all reply to criticism of the Labour party and to all remarks regarding its ignorance and lack of appreciation of the situation. But I will take a point which influences many of us on this side, and which should be of the highest importance to hon. Members opposite. What is hindering us in this particular question in a rapid solution of our industrial affairs? We are losing millions of money annually in this country by reason of the immobility of labour. You cannot move labour from one part of the country to another because of the housing problem. You cannot get conditions which—

The CHAIRMAN: That again, I think, is going a little wide of the question under immediate discussion.

Mr. GRAHAM: I agree entirely. I was simply endeavouring to take a point which would appeal in this particular consideration to hon. Members opposite. The proposal before us is based on grounds of expediency. It is an effort to hasten the solution of the housing problem, and I want to press home that consideration, because it is very important in this connection. I hope on these grounds that hon. Members opposite will modify their ideas regarding the efforts of this Department and will enable the Vote to go through.

Lord HUGH CECIL: This is an interesting discussion because it does seem to me to raise an important issue, perhaps more important than the Government quite faced when they put down this Vote for consideration. The interesting speech which has just been delivered by a speaker of great ability was really directed to the main controversy. The substance of the hon. Member's argument has been used over and over again when contrasting the advantages of State action on one side and the action of private enterprise on the other. Certainly I would not say, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member would say, that there is nothing to be said in favour of State action. The case has been stated, and it is a strong case, but we are not going, on a Supplementary Estimate put forward by the Office of Works, to revise
the general policy of the country in respect of State action. The argument in favour of this is only that there is an emergency, that there is a certain difficulty in production, that private enterprise is taking advantage of that emergency and difficulty, and that accordingly it is desirable for the State to take action by competition or through giving its service. Let us be sure that you will be able to justify any proposal for nationalising anything. There is always an emergency, and some kind of action is always needed or a larger production of some kind. There is always a suspicion, very often a well-grounded suspicion, that private enterprise is taking advantage by combination to restrain production. I will not go into that further than to say that this is not the occasion, when an Estimate of this kind is put down, to start to reverse what hitherto has been the policy, and to make State action take the place of private enterprise in any particular field of activity.
The whole theory of private enterprise is an opposite one. It is, I submit, the gains of private trade, not because of the trader but because in the end you increase production more in that way than by State intervention. I am not going to argue this question, which is too wide, but it is necessary to realise that the sort of speech to which we have just listened, and other speeches from the Labour party, are speeches which might be used in defence of proposals to nationalise anything. It has two aspects. There is the industrial aspect and there is the financial aspect. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend, not satisfied with officiating as contractor, wishes also to officiate as banker. He is going to advance £200,000 of appropriations-in-aid for the use of local authorities to meet a temporary financial difficulty which they are afterwards to repay to him. I cannot conceive why the Office of Works should act as banker. It seems a great financial irregularity. There is a particular procedure by public works loan by which the local authorities are able to borrow money. Why should we do away with that normal procedure for this exceptional procedure of allowing the Office of Works to lend out to local authorities £200,000 as a temporary accommodation loan? It seems to be bad enough that my right hon. Friend should act as contractor, but it
seems to be still worse that he should act as banker. What other trade will he interfere in next? If there is some necessity for corn production perhaps he will appear as a farmer. Some successor of his may launch forth into any trade, and he can say that there is a difficulty in that particular trade and it is necessary for the public Department to go in and take over the work. On what ground are you going to draw a distinction between this particular contract and any other into which it may be advantageous to the Government to enter?
This really is a great innovation. It appears on a Supplementary Estimate, but it is a great innovation. It is much more than municipalisation. It is nationalisation. It is a case of a national Department taking up the position of a private trader. I hope the House will not sanction that by supporting the Government in the Lobby. I think it would be a step of a very dangerous character if we sanctioned this Vote. As my right hon. Friend the Member for the City truly said, these things are always put forward as temporary expedients and then the precedent comes to be used. What a precedent we should be setting for a Labour Government which might develop the Office of Works into a complete system of the nationalisation of all industries. They would have this precedent and could point out that there is really no difference between national action in this case and any other. You are asked to support on a Supplementary Estimate an innovation of the most serious character when all the time the Government are going about the country taking credit because they are the great resisters of the policy of nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner appears here as a banker and contractor, and presently, I suppose, will go down to the country and ask everyone to support the Government because they resist nationalisation. Who can have listened to this Debate without being struck by the strangeness of seeing speaker after speaker of the Labour party rising up in support of the Government and regarding my right hon. Friend as a Moses to lead them out of Egypt. I suggest if we desire to resist nationalisation in all its forms we ought to resist this Vote and make it clear that we are not going to have the local authorities using the Government as their bankers
for the purpose of advancing money when they should use the means provided by the Public Works (Loans) Act, and that we are not going to have a public Department officiating as contractors and taking over works which might otherwise be done; and setting an example which cannot but be of a most dangerous tendency in the hands of this Government or any Government which may succeed.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we are discussing the same question over and over again, and I hope the Committee will be prepared to take a decision now.

Sir A. MOND: Before the Committee takes a decision, I should like to reply to one or two questions which have been asked. One was with regard to a temporary loan, and an hon. Member desired to know if it would be repayable within twelve months. I do not suppose it will be outstanding for many weeks much less months. It is really temporary, and is not meant to be in any way a permanent part of the finances of the scheme. The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) said that the Department ought not to act as bankers, but I do not think that is really a correct description

Sir F. BANBURY: Moneylenders!

Sir A. MOND: We want this money in order to pay for labour and material, and it will be repaid. In spite of the really eloquent speech of the Noble Lord, and that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City, I hope the Committee will take a really common-sense view about this matter. I could almost have imagined this afternoon that this was a debating society rather than an Assembly which has got to deal with a very simple proposition. The local authorities, owing to many circumstances, are in difficulties about the housing scheme. They come to the Office of Works not to act as contractors merely, but for advice and for technical assistance to my Department.

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that his Department will not step in if private enterprise can do the work?

Sir A. MOND: If they cannot get a satisfactory tender it is done by direct
labour. Direct labour is exceptional when you cannot get a satisfactory contract. We have no wish to take over any more than we can possibly help; and neither it is permanent; or permanent policy. It is an emergency, and when it is over everybody will revert to the ordinary pre-War practice. We are merely asking for money for schemes already under weigh, and which cannot possibly be withdrawn and stopped in their present stage, half finished. They are assisting to remove deplorable housing conditions, which everybody is anxious to solve at the earliest possible moment.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: I was going to fall in, Sir, with you suggestion had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks open the way to further discussion. May I refer to an undertaking by the London County Council some years ago under precisely similar conditions which the Government are urging to-day. The County Council started their own works department to carry out work in London, which they said could not be carried out otherwise because of a ring of builders, who made it impossible for the work to be done in that way at a reasonable price, and with due regard to the interests of the ratepayers. What happened? They took a case which is obviously one requiring a certain amount of speculation, I refer to underground work, they selected a particularly high estimate, said it was too high, and that they would do the work themselves. They happened to be lucky and carried out the work at much less than the contract. They then proceeded by easy steps to argue that that was the way to save the ratepayers' money and that it was necessary not only in London, but in other districts, and they provided their own department to do their own work. After a regular rake's progress the whole thing had to be shut down because the ratepayers were not benefiting. The same thing will happen in this case if you allow what must be considered to be a nationalisation policy. Once you start this you hesitate to do away with the Department because that would cause a certain amount of unemployment. I hope the Committee will see the wisdom of stopping this extravagant policy at a time when economy is being preached by every Member of the Government,
and that Members will vote against this suggestion of starting this experiment which could be avoided if only control were taken off the building trade.

Question put,

"That a sum not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during

the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for Expenditure in respect of the erection of houses by the Office of Works on behalf of Local Authorities proceeding with Assisted Housing Schemes approved by the Ministry of Health in accordance with the provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, &c, Act, 1919."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 64.

Division No. 379.]
AYES.
7.45 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Glanville, Harold James
Perkins, Waiter Frank


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Pratt, John William


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Purchase, H. G.


Armitage, Robert
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Ramsden, G. T.


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y N.)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gregory, Holman
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Barlow, Sir Montague
Greig, Colonel James William
Rendall, Athelstan


Barnett, Major R. W.
Grundy, T. W.
Renwick, George


Barnston, Major Harry
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hartshorn, Vernon
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hayday, Arthur
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hayward, Major Evan
Rodger, A. K.


Bigland, Alfred
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Rose, Frank H.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Royce, William Stapleton


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hudson, R. M.
Seager, Sir William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, Percy A.
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Bruton, Sir James
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Jesson, C.
Simm, M. T.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Cairns, John
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Spencer, George A.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Stanton, Charles B.


Casey, T. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sutherland, Sir William


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Swan, J. E.


Clough, Robert
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Taylor, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Coats, Sir Stuart
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Collin's, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
M'Guffin, Samuel
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
M-Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Davies. A. (Lancaster, Clithcroe)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Turton, E. R.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Mallalleu, F. W.
Vickers, Douglas


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


Donald, Thompson
Martin, Captain A. E.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Duncannon, Viscount
Mason, Robert
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Edge, Captain William
Middlebrook, Sir William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wilkie, Alexander


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Fildes, Henry
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Finney, Samuel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wise, Frederick


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Myers, Thomas
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Neal, Arthur
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Galbraith, Samuel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gardiner, James
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Younger, Sir George


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parker, James



Gilbert, James Daniel
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


NOES.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W C. H. (Devizes)
Brown, Captain D. C.
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Borwick, Major G. O.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Doyle, N. Grattan
Johnstone, Joseph
Randies, Sir John S.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Kidd, James
Remer, J. R.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Remnant, Sir James


Gretton, Colonel John
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lorden, John William
Sugden, W. H.


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Manville, Edward
Waddington, R.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Hogge, James Myles
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Holmes, J. Stanley
Nall, Major Joseph
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Finchley)



Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Marshall


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Perring, William George
Stevens.


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

CLASS 2.

MINES DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £73,629, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): This is not, strictly speaking, a Supplementary Estimate; it is a separate Estimate to show the financial position of the Mines Department as far as it can be shown at the present moment, and it is introduced at the instance of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Wedgwood Benn), who extracted from the Leader of the House a promise that something of this kind should be submitted to the House in order that they might see how the figures stood. I am very glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman is enjoying a pleasant relaxation from the strenuous duties which he imposed upon himself of keeping the Government in its place, and if he has time to study our proceedings now, I am sure he will be gratified to find that the Government are keeping to the narrow path of duty. Sufficient money has already been voted to cover the expenses, but this Estimate makes it easier for the Accounting Officer and gives the Committee an opportunity of seeing how the money is spent. I think the figures in the Estimate itself are tolerably plain and require very little explanation from me, and therefore I will not say much about them, although, if any hon. Member has any question to ask, I shall be very glad to do my best to reply to it. In the first place, how ever, I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are two
different periods in this Estimate. The period for the Mines Department starts from 1st September, and the period which includes the cost of those services taken over from the Home Office starts from 1st December, and therefore we have to account for seven months on one side of the Department and four months on the other. I think the Committee ought to know that the actual staff of the Department has been very largely reduced. On 1st April this year the staff of the Coal Mines Department totalled 828; on 1st July of this year it was 683; and at the present moment, 1st December, the numbers are only 376; but to that we have to add 120 transferred from the Home Office, making the total number now 496.

Mr. HOLMES: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that this Estimate includes seven months for the Coal Mines Department and four months for the Department transferred from the Home Office. Could he tell us what the Estimate is for a full year of the new Department?

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not so easy to do that, because I hope it will be possible to make further reductions, but the hon. Gentleman will see that at the bottom of page 4 of the Supplementary Estimate we have given a statement of the cost on an annual basis, calculated as it is at the present moment, and I think he will agree with me that it is better not to prophesy as to the exact cost for 1921–22; but we have put this on the Paper in order to give some sort of guide as to what the actual cost would be on the present basis. There is one other point which I should like to mention, and which, I think, should be mentioned, because it was not foretold when we discussed the Financial Resolution for the Mining Industry Act. There has been added to the Department a Labour Adviser, and I consider myself very
fortunate in having secured the services of so experienced a man as the right hon. Gentleman who represented Abertillery (Mr. Brace), who is now giving us the benefit of his advice at the Mines Department. The value of his experience and his influence in the industry, I think, are recognised by everybody, and there can be nobody in this House who has listened to the speeches that he has made or followed the action that he has taken who could fail to recognise how fair and impartial he has been the whole time in his dealings with that important industry. I also think I should say that the Coal Controller, Mr. Duncan, I am very sorry, left us yesterday. So long as the strike continued, we had the benefit of his great experience and advice, and I do not think the public at large have sufficiently realised the services he rendered to the country during the time he was Coal Controller. He had a most difficult time. He came in at a most difficult time, and he went through a most difficult time, and I think there are very few people who possess the good temper and tact, as well as the ability to tackle the situation which Mr. Duncan had. I think it only right that I should testify as plainly as I can to the extreme value that his services have been to us, and the gratitude they should meet with from this House. I am sure that members of the Labour party, as well as everybody else, will recognise the fairness and straightforwardness with which ho handled this very difficult problem. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more at this stage. I hope I have made it quite clear that we have done what we can to reduce our staff and to bring our expenses within the most modest bounds while fulfilling the. requirements of the mining industry, and I trust the Committee will pass this Estimate, if not with enthusiasm, at any rate, without any feeling that they are doing any harm to their country.

Colonel ASHLEY: I intervene with some hesitation in this Debate, because I have no technical knowledge of the mining industry, and therefore it may seem rather presumptuous of me to offer any criticism. But as the finances of this country are in such an unhealthy state at the present moment, I think we ought to have some more information from the
Secretary of Mines as to the necessity for the enormous staff which is set out on pages 5 and 6 of these Supplementary Estimates. Before I go further, may I say how pleased I am to see the right hon. Gentleman in the position which he holds. I am sure he will be most successful in carrying on the duties which have been allocated to him. I do not in the least object to the salary of £1,500 a year which he is to receive, considering the responsibilities of his position, but when I come to the next item, "Controller of Coal Mines, £2,750 a year inclusive," I should like to have some more information as to what are the duties of this gentleman.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: He left yesterday. His appointment was one dating long before the change. The Department of the Coal Controller existed under the old arrangements. He leaves now, after having stayed on with us for three months in order to help us through.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is there to be another one?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No.

Colonel ASHLEY: Then it is my fault for not appreciating the point which had been made. That £2,750 a year is deleted from the expenses as they are to-day. Next we have the appointment of my friend, Mr. Brace, as chief Labour Adviser. I am quite sure that if you are going to have a chief Labour Adviser you could not possibly have appointed a man who will be more acceptable to everybody, and who will carry out his duties with more efficiency or with greater impartiality. He was one of the most popular Members that ever sat in this House But is it really necessary that all these Departments, or so many of them, should have Labour advisers at all? I do not know what he is supposed to advise about. If there is any difficulty between a Ministry and any of the trades unions, surely the trades unions can go and state their case and the Minister can listen to them, with his permanent staff. I think Labour advisers are, at the present moment, luxuries which we ought not to go in for. I would ask the Secretary for Mines when he replies to state exactly why a chief Labour Adviser was necessary. People have said that the post was created to find something for Mr. Brace. I am sure he is
worthy of every support that can be given to him, but I do consider that we ought to have more reasons given us as to why the country should have to pay £1,500 a year for a chief Labour Adviser at all. Then there is a Temporary Financial Adviser. Why should the Department of Mines want a financial adviser? What does he advise on—what price you should ask for coal or to whom you should sell it, or how the money which is got from coal is to be invested? These Estimates really give us very little light and leading as to what are the duties of these various people. The Financial Adviser is to be paid £1,500 a year, inclusive—of what I do not know, but I suppose it means that is to be the sum total of his emoluments.
Then we have four Assistant Under-Secretaries. Surely this Department could get on with two Under-Secretaries or with one Under-Secretary. Is it necessary to have four? What have these four Under-Secretaries to do? Has each a sub-Department, for which he is to be responsible? Next we have got nine staff officers. What is a staff officer? I always thought a staff officer was an officer in the Army or in the Navy who was appointed to assist the technical branch of the War Office or the Admiralty, as the case may be, on particular duties they have to perform. Hero we have got five staff officers at salaries of from £500 to £600 a year, and four staff officers at £400 to £500 a year. We ought to have some more information upon that point. Next I find there are 85 clerks, men and women. The women are to have from £60 to £180 a year, whereas the men are to have from £60 to £250 a year. Do the men and the women do the same work? If they do, I consider the women should be paid exactly the same rate as the men, and not less. If they have less responsible work, I can quite understand their not receiving up to £250, but if they are asked to do exactly the same work as the men, and apparently they are, I do not think it is fair on women to ask them to work at a less remuneration than the men. Then, going lower down, we find that Ireland is to have a Deputy-Controller and a Technical Adviser all to itself. Is that necessary? In our legislation and in our Estimates we always treat Ireland as a separate country, it seems to me, and entirely differently from the
way in which we treat this country. When racing was stopped the other day, owing to the strike, it was allowed to go on in Ireland. When the War was on, things went on practically in the normal way in Ireland, as compared with this country. Why should it be necessary to have a Technical Adviser in Ireland? There is only one very small coalfield in Ireland, in the County of Leitrim, and surely it is not necessary to have a Technical Adviser, distinct from the English one, to carry on work in that island. It is a small thing, but surely the right hon. Gentleman's Department in London does not want 31 charwomen. We saw from a return the other day that there are in and around Whitehall some 700 charwomen. It may seem a small point, but we ought to take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves, and I want to know whether the 31 charwomen are all to be engaged in the Department of the Board of Trade in London, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the responsible head.

Mr. S. HOLMES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £55,000.
I would like to take this opportunity, as I believe it is the first occasion on which the Secretary for Mines has stood in the Box to make a speech on behalf of his Department, to congratulate him on being appointed to that office, and to say how glad those of us who take an interest in the coal trade are that he has been appointed. I would also like to associate myself with what he has said concerning Mr. Duncan. There is no doubt whatever that Mr. Duncan—I hope I am not making any invidious distinctions—was the ablest of all the Coal Controllers who acted during the War, and I believe it is a great loss to this country that he has seen fit to take up another occupation. With regard to this Vote, in which we are asked to sanction a gross total of £127,554—that apparently represents an annual expenditure of something like £250,000—I feel the attention of the Committee should be drawn to the Resolution which it passed, and which the House endorsed, when the Mining Industry Bill was before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) moved an Amendment, when the Financial Resolution was being considered in Committee, providing that the total amount to be expended on this
Department should not in any one year exceed £250,000. That was accepted by the President of the Board of Trade and incorporated in the Bill. I have endeavoured, from the details given on page 5, in the inner column, to work out how much the annual cost of all these officers amounts to. It will be observed that, while the amount for the seven months or the four months of the year 1920–21 is given in the outer column, the annual figures are given in the inner column. As far as I can make out, omitting the Coal Controller's salary, the total comes to £257,000, and, allowing for the savings which the Secretary for Mines hopes to make, his annual expenditure is going to be about £250,000. What I am going to try to show to him and the Committee is that, when they assured the House that they would not spend more than £250,000 upon this Department, they intended to include in that expenditure a number of departments of other Government Departments which would be transferred to this Department, and whose expenses, when transferred, were to be part of the £250,000. I state that straight away, so that the Secretary for Mines may be able to follow my argument. When the President of the Board of Trade moved the Second Reading of what was called the Ministry of Mines Bill, but subsequently became, as the result of the House of Lords' Amendment, the Mining Industry Act, he said that one of the objects of the Bill was to consolidate in one Department all the various Government Departments which were dealing with coal. He said there would be transferred to this new Department the existing Coal Controller's Department, the Department of the Home Office which dealt with the inspection and safety of mines, the Department of the Board of Trade which dealt with the minimum wage and district boards, and also a portion of the Statistical Department, the Department of the Board of Education which dealt with Geological Survey, and the Department of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests which dealt with coal under Crown lands. When the Financial Resolution- came before the House, I ventured to state what, in my opinion, was the expense which would be transferred from these various other Government Departments to the new Mines Department, and, if I may, I want to repeat those figures. The
Home Office Department of Inspection was £80,734, the Board of Mining Examinations £3,210, the Geological Survey Department of the Board of Education £30,043. The Coal Controller s Department was put down as £75,000, which was the President's own estimate for the future. The Minister's salary was estimated at £2,000, but was reduced, I believe by the House of Lords, to £1,500.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: By this House.

Mr. HOLMES: It was reduced by this House to £1,500, and then a certain amount was to be allowed for the section of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests Department, which I was unable to ascertain from the Estimate. The total spent on that Department was £33,000, and a portion of it, possibly £3,000 or £5,000, was to be transferred to this Department. That brought us very nearly to £200,000, and I suggested that an additional £50,000 was going to be spent on new officers and the building up of a fresh Government Department The President of the Board of Trade replied that I was quite right in suggesting that an additional £50,000 was to be spent in appointing new officers. Further details were that the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, so far as it related to coal, was to be transferred to the extent of £10,000 a year. The Inspection Department of the Home Office, instead of being £80,000, as I suggested, was £98,000, which accounted for another £18,000. There were a number of officers whose services were borne by the Coal Department, amounting to £10,000, and there would also be transferred the Department of Mineral Resources of the Board of Trade, the expense of which amounted annually to £10,000. Thus he accounted for the difference of £50,000. Here we have before us this Estimate, which is for the few months £127,000, and I think in round figures comes to £250,000, or there abouts, a year. What I venture to put to the right hon. Gentleman is, that he has apparently carried out the promise given to the House that the expenditure of this Department should not exceed' £250,000 a year, but he has not transferred to his Department his Geological Survey Department, which was to cost £30,043 a year. He has not transferred the Department of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, which deal with
coal under Crown lands, which probably amounts to £3,000 or £5,000. He has not transferred any portion of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, which he anticipated would cost £10,000 a year. He shakes his head, but I can see nothing about the Statistical Department. He has not transferred the Department of Mineral Resources of the Board of Trade, which the President said would cost £10,000 a year.
In other words, the Committee and the House anticipated that when it voted £250,000 a year for the Coal Mines Department, that sum would include £30,000 for the Geological Survey Department, transferred from the Board of Education, £10,000 transferred from the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, £10,000 from the Department of Mineral Resources of the Board of Trade, and a certain sum, which I estimate at from £3,000 to £5,000, from the Department of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The Secretary for Mines is quite entitled not to transfer these if he so desires. Section 23 of the Act says that he may make arrangements for the exercise or performance of any of these duties by any Government Department, and, apparently, the President of the Board of Trade, or the Secretary for Mines, has decided to leave these Departments, which cost about £55,000 a year, where they are. But if they are going to do that, then I say, according to the Resolution to which this House came, they ought not to spend £250,000 a year; they ought only to spend £195,000 a year, because there was expected that in the £250,000 a year that £55,000 would be included. Therefore, I want to move a reduction of this Vote by £55,000, and I hope the Secretary for Mines will be able to explain to us how it is that, while he may be carrying out the letter of what he and the President of the Board of Trade promised, he is not, apparently, carrying out the spirit of that agreement.
This is a new Vote. This is the first opportunity we have had of discussing the expenses of this Department, or the salary of the Secretary for Mines. I feel, therefore, we have the right and the privilege of asking the Secretary for Mines what is the general policy which he proposes to adopt in regard to his Department. At the present time the coal
industry is controlled under the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920. That Act provides for the extension of the period of control until 31st August, 1921, and it is further possible by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament for the control to continue year by year. I hope the Secretary for Mines will be able to outline to us his view concerning the continuance of control. The matter has been altered to a certain extent as the result of the recent coal strike, and the terms on which that coal strike was settled. The Committee will recollect that in Section 10 of the Mining Industry Act Area Boards were to be set up and were to have the right to formulate schemes for adjusting the remuneration of the miners in any particular area according to the profits of the industry within that area; they also have the right to take into account the output, cost of production, and the proceeds of the profits in the area as a whole. That has been entirely set aside by the settlement agreed upon during the coal strike. By the new-consideration which is being given by the coalowners, the miners, and the Government to the establishment of a national wage and the consideration of the division of the profits of the industry as a whole, the question of the Area Boards and the fixing of wages according to the areas, has apparently entirely gone. By that settlement one might almost say that Section 10 of the Act has been repealed, because, obviously, there is no intention, without the Government being entirely guilty of falseness to the miners, to insist upon that Section of the Act being carried out in the future. This has entirely altered the position with regard to control.
Personally, I cannot see how it is possible for a considerable time for any division of profits on a national basis to be made amongst the workers or coal-owners unless the profits of the industry are pooled, and those profits cannot be pooled unless control is maintained. I desire that the Secretary for Mines should tell us what is his view concerning the future profits of the industry as it is at present placed? There seems to be no doubt that the prices now being obtained for export coal will fall. The profits that have gone into the pool during the last few months have been almost entirely profits upon export coal; home coal has been sold at or under cost
price. There are many signs that the price of export coal will fall. A great deal of coal is being sent to Europe from America. Under the Peace Treaty France is yearly receiving many tons of German coal. The use of oil in ships is increasing, and for that reason, and for the reason that the necessity will not be laid upon us to maintain such a Navy as we had before, the demand of the Admiralty for South Wales coal will fall. This latter observation will equally apply to the other navies of the world who in the past have demanded South Wales coal, and who, by reducing their navy, or by adopting oil fuel, will no longer require our coal. There appears to me, therefore, no doubt that within the next few months the prices that we have obtained by the export of coal will fall, and with it the amount of profit which is going into the pool.
I desire to ask the Secretary of Mines whether, in this event and in order to maintain his agreement, in order that the award arranged should be given to the coalowners, and in order that any agreement which may be given to the miners as a result of the consultations which are going on now and will go on for the next few months following the strike settlement, may be given, he proposes in the event of the proceeds from export coal falling to increase the price of coal in this country. The next point I want to put is in connection with Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, which provides that a fund should be constituted to be applied for such purposes connected with the social wellbeing, and so on, of the miners in and about the mines, the means of education, and research, as his Department shall approve, and that in order to constitute that fund, every coalowner should, before 31st March next and before the same day in each of the successive five years, pay a sum equal to Id. per ton upon the output for the previous calendar year. I want to ask what has been done towards putting that Section into effect. The Section goes on to say that a Committee shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister to deal with this matter. I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has appointed that Committee, and if so who are the members of it, how many are coalowners, and have they so far been asked to contribute their Id. per ton towards the fund, and if any of them have been asked, how many have paid it. What
is the position of the fund at the present; and what steps the Committee have taken in drawing up a policy for carrying out the purposes of the fund—namely the social wellbeing of the workers in and about the coalmines?
The Estimates are the next thing I desire to ask about. I see that among the officers that the right hon. Gentleman has appointed is a Director of Health and Safety at a salary of £1,200 a year. It has always been understood that the Chief Inspector under the Department of the Home Office who dealt with mines has full responsibility in regard to both the health and the safety of the coal mines. The Committee may perhaps recollect that the annual report of this official has mainly dealt with this subject. Almost the only things to which he has referred was the health of the miners and the safety or non-safety of the various mines. Possibly he is a former official of the Home Office who is now being designated the Director of Health and Safety. If that is so—

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: indicated assent.

Mr. HOLMES: Then that is a sufficient explanation of the matter; but perhaps amongst the questions I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman he will answer this one. There is, however, still the Chief Inspector of the Mines Department, who is also getting £1,200 a year. He is the man who formerly wrote this Report. Now we have also got this Inspector of Health and Safety, and I want to ask whether it is a new appointment, and, if so, what advantage is going to be gained, either from the point of view of the miners, or from the point of view of the State, by this apparent duplication.
Reference has been made to the appointment of Mr. Brace as Chief Labour Adviser. Those of us who sat with him in this House have the greatest respect, almost affection, for him; but I cannot help feeling—I am only expressing my own opinion here—that, having regard to what has happened in the past few months, his appointment is not a happy one. Mr. Brace had taken the lead on the part of the miners in many Debates in this House. On 21st October, I think, in the middle of the coal strike, he acted as chief spokesman for the miners. There is no doubt whatever that the Government's offer to him of a singularly
lucrative appointment, and his acceptance of it, has created amongst those whom he formerly represented a considerable amount of bad feeling. This reflects not merely upon Mr. Brace but upon the Government itself. So many of the miners feel that here is a man who was their spokesman, who had done great service for them, and he was removed from their side and taken over to the Government side by the offer of this appointment. While it has been done in his case, as in the case of Sir David Shackleton, one hopes it will not often happen, as it is undoubtedly a mistaken policy, and a very bad thing from the point of view of trade unionists. I want the House to note that there is not merely Mr. Brace as Chief Labour Adviser, but there are two Labour advisers and conciliation officers who are going to act under him. I want to ask what is the need for these Labour advisers in each Government Department? We have a Ministry of Labour, the very object of which is to deal with matters of this kind. Before the War the Ministry of Labour had about 4,400 officials, and to-day it has 23,000 officials. It is equipped for its work, and some of us think it is over-equipped. It is also an independent Department, so that when you have a Government Department endeavouring to settle a labour dispute with what are practically its own employés it is surely dangerous to have a Labour adviser who is not the paid servant of that particular Department, but you should have one from an independent outside source, who would, as far as possible, bring an independent mind to bear upon the problem. I see no advantage in having three Labour advisers attached to this Department in the way suggested in this Estimate.
There are one or two small points which are important to which I want to direct the attention of the Secretary for Mines. One reads at the top of the list the salaries which are being paid first to the Secretary for Mines, £1,500; Permanent Under-Secretary, £1,800; the Chief Labour Adviser, £1,500; Financial Adviser, £1,500; Assistant Under-Secretary, £1,200; and one goes down the list and you find shorthand-typists at 28s. a week. I want to ask whether for a shorthand-typist 28s. a week is considered enough at the present time. Then there is a typist at 22s. a week. I suggest
there is not a business man in this House who would pay his typist 22s. a week at the present time, because women cannot live on a wage like that. Then there are clerks at £60 a year. Is the Government in paying £60 a year to a man at the present time having regard to the cost of living. Right at the bottom of the list is what to me is the most amazing thing of all, that is, a mechanic at the station for testing mining explosives £80 a year. One would have thought that a mechanic to test mining explosives, which is a singularly dangerous occupation and one which needs the greatest possible care, should be paid a higher salary or wage than 30s. a week. I do not want to suggest, having regard to present-day conditions, that the salaries paid at the top of the list are more than ought to be paid, but I do suggest with great earnestness that the salaries which are being offered to girls of the shorthand-typist and the typist class, and some of the male employés are less than it is possible either for women or men to live comfortably upon at the present day. I put these points to the Secretary for Mines, and I feel sure that, with the usual courtesy that he always shows in Debate, he will endeavour as far as possible to explain them.

Mr. HARTSHORN: I desire to ask one or two questions entirely for the purpose of eliciting information. I would like the Secretary for Mines to explain why the sum of £2,750 is placed in the Estimate for the Coal Controller's salary. On 29th October last year, when the Coal Controller was appointed, I inquired of the then President of the Board of Trade (Sir Auckland Geddes) what were the financial arrangements in regard to that engagement, and I was told that Mr. Duncan's remuneration as Controller of Coal Mines was to be £2,300 per annum. I assumed from that reply that he was given a salary of. £2,000, with £300 as war bonus. I expect every other Member of the House drew the same inference, and I should like to know why there is a further £450 in the Estimate under that head. I notice the amount is said to be £2,750 inclusive. The Permanent Under-Secretary is to draw a salary of £1,800 a year. That is not inclusive. I should be glad if the Secretary for Mines will tell us what is the total salary, how much it is in addition to the £1,800 a year, and whether the
addition is by way of war bonus or pension, or anything else. I shall be pleased, also, if the hon. Gentleman will tell us what this gentleman was receiving prior to his appointment to his present post. I understand he has been engaged for a considerable time in the Department, and I should like to know the total amount he is now receiving, as well as what he received in the past. I should also like to know whether £1,500 a year is the total amount received by the Chief Labour Adviser, and, if not, what is the total and how is it made up?
I see a figure here, "War Bonus £34,397." I assume that these war bonuses are spread over the different salaries. How are they spread, and in what proportion? Is it a percentage of salary, and is there a minimum or a maximum? I think we should be in a position to know the actual salaries of all the persons referred to in the schedule. I should like also to associate myself with the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Holmes) with reference to the low wages paid to people at the bottom of the scale. I think they are scandalous, and ought to be raised immediately. I would also like to call attention to the salary of the mines inspectors. It is simply amazing that 32 junior inspectors should be paid salaries ranging from £300 to £450 a year, and that 30 sub-spectors should be drawing the magnificent sum of £150 to £200 a year. These inspectors of mines are drawing less than is paid to boys employed in the industry on the surface at 18 years of age, and if these figures represent the salaries actually paid to them it is high time they were raised. Will the Secretary for Mines give us information which will enable us to know exactly what the staff are being paid; because if, in regard to some of them which are very substantial as they stand, there is 50 per cent, added for war bonus, then I would suggest those salaries would seem to be altogether out of proportion to the services rendered by some of these people.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I am prompted by the advice given by the Prime Minister as well as by the intense interest. I take in this subject to ask a few questions of the Secretary for Mines on the subject of this Estimate. May I first be allowed to congratulate him on his appointment and more particularly to congratulate the British tax-
payer on getting such a very efficient head for this Department. We are accustomed in these days, when we see new Ministries created, to having what are known as supermen appointed to the head. I have never yet-discovered anything very useful about a superman except his extraordinary capacity for using the taxpayers' money with the minimum advantage to the taxpayer. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman at any rate will do his best to see that this money is laid out in the very best way for the country as a whole. I should also like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been enabled already to lower very considerably the number of individuals employed in his Department, and I hope that during the course of his régime, in the next twelve months, he will be able to reduce it by another 50 per cent., bringing it to a total which, in my opinion, would be more in keeping with the needs of the Department. Coming to the list of salaries, we start with nine of something over £1,000 a year. Further down the page we come to two more big salaries. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot go into this question again and if he cannot sandwich together one or two of these jobs. For instance there is the Permanent Under-Secretary of Mines, there is the Chief Labour Adviser, there is the Financial Adviser, there is an Assistant Under-Secretary, the Director of Health and Safety, and two Assistant Under-Secretaries of another species. Could not he do away with some of these Assistant Under-Secretaries? Could he not do away with the Financial Adviser, seeing that we have at the head of the Department a man whose financial ability is so-extraordinarily good in every way?
Then I come to the Chief Labour Adviser. As a new Member I listened to the late Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) many times. I have the greatest respect for him, and I think it is a pity in the difficult times with which, we are faced to-day, that a man of his ability should be taken out of the House of Commons and put into an ordinary Government Department where his extraordinary capacity for leading and dealing with men is lost to the nation as a whole. I have no doubt he is the best labour adviser that could be appointed, but I do say the loss to the country is far greater than the gain to the Department when we come to
weigh it in its fullest sense. I now come to a rather curious case. I see that there are four principals and three assistant principals. How am I to explain to an intelligent elector who may cross-examine me on these Estimates—and some of them do—the precise way in which these three assistant principals are going to help their four principals? How are they divided up? It is a small point, but there does seem in this particular case to be a rather large surplus of principals to their assistants. As I notice that a principal is paid from £700 to £900 a year, and an assistant principal is paid very much less, surely we might squeeze out, say, two of the principals, so that there might be more room for their assistants to work.
Then I notice—this point has been already mentioned—that in the Mines Inspectorate there is a "Mechanic at the Station for Testing Mining Explosives," who is also a caretaker. I protest against taking a man who is in charge of high explosives and also making him into a caretaker of any kind, even if he does get for it the magnificent salary of 5s. a week. Following this individual a little further, I find that, in Section C, a further sum is required, for "Testing of Explosives, Apparatus, etc.," of £1,600. What is the precise work which that man is doing? Surely his value should be paid for, not so much by the State, is he is testing explosives, as by the users of those explosives —in other words, by the mine owners. If this individual's history is followed a little further, it will be found that the assumption that he, and also his apparatus, should be paid for by the actual owners, is borne out by the fact that under the Appropriations in Aid, in Section F, there is an item, "Fees for Testing Explosives for Use in Mines, £75." If £1,600 is required plus the salary of this individual, surely the fees for the testing of explosives used in mines should be much higher, and should be made to cover the cost. Again, the fees for the testing of miners' safety lamps seem to be ridiculously small at £40, when they are compared with the cost to the State of the people employed in testing. If any fees whatever are to be charged for these tests of explosives, or lamps, or anything else, they should, in these days of heavy national taxation, be made large enough to cover the whole cost of the work. I would ask my right hon. Friend to be
Very careful and exacting, as I am sure he will be, during the next few months, in endeavouring, as far as he possibly can, to reduce the whole expenditure of his Department; and I should also like to express, not only to him, but to the Government—I am glad to see that the Patronage Secretary is here—the wish that every endeavour may be made to cut down the official standard. I do not mean the very low wages of which we have been told, and which are certainly too low in many respects, but this extraordinary number of big salaries which is always found in every fresh department, and which I believe to be one of the reasons why the country is suffering at present from a burden of taxation which it is quite unable to bear.

9.0 P.M.

Major WATTS MORGAN: A great deal has been said with regard to the high salaries included in this Estimate, and I should be much interested if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate the increase that will accrue to the Permanent Under-Secretary for Mines on the salary which he received before the Mines Department was established. I think that that will throw some light on the low salary to which attention has been called by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn). How can we expect to get efficient men as sub-inspectors for the absurdly low rates which he instanced—men who must possess both practical and theoretical knowledge, and must, to be of service at all in the mines, be of some standing? Then the Estimate includes, for inspectors of horses, the handsome and generous sum of £2 8s. per week—the wages paid to a boy of 16 underground. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that these shall be whole-time men, or are they to be part-time men, to go down in the morning or the evening after they have done some other work?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Perhaps I may interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, as I think it may save time, to point out that those salaries which are not marked "inclusive" carry war bonuses on a regular scale fixed by the Treasury. As far as these inspectors and others who have been referred to are concerned, they follow the same scale as everyone else in the Civil Service, and the war bonus
has to be added to all those salaries which are not described as "inclusive." I may also point out to the Committee that all of the items in the Mines Inspectorate, which have been taken over from the Home Office, have been in the Home Office Estimate, and have been passed by the House as they stand now on the Paper. I venture to think, therefore, that it is out of order to criticise them one by one, because they have been passed by the House already.

Major MORGAN: The Secretary for Mines has not told us what the rate of advance is. May I take it it may be anything from not less than £30 to not more than £60, or perhaps I may put it that it is 60 per cent.—the highest amount payable on the £'2 4s. 2d.a week. That will give a wage to the sub-inspector of £3 16s. a week. Does he think that is an adequate wage to pay if the inspection is to be made properly? If it is to be of any benefit at all the inspection should be made by the inspector in going round the works and seeing where the horses are employed. If only eight inspectors are to be appointed, and this inspection is to be carried out in the stables, right under the pit bottom and under the pit shaft, we might as well be without any inspection at all. If the right hon. Gentleman wants us to have any admiration for him at all he will see that some of the salaries in the high class are taken off and considerably more put on to those who are so badly paid. These men have not received attention in the past, and now when the matter comes before the House it is our duty to see that it is put right and that these men, from whom we expect efficient service, shall be adequately paid for the work they do.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): Perhaps I ought to say something on the point raised by the Secretary for Mines. It is quite true that most of these appointments have been before the House under the Votes of other Departments. While I have allowed some reference to cases included in that category, I do not think it right to allow a general discussion, because the House has already dealt with them. I can only allow a general discussion on appointments which are new appointments. Perhaps hon. Members will kindly bear that in mind.

Mr. CAIRNS: I see on page 5 of the White Paper, under the heading of "temporary staff," "accountant, £850 inclusive." That means no war bonus. Is it intended that there should be only one set of accountants for the whole country —that is, for 240,000,000 tons of coal or 60,000,000 per quarter? If so, is this intended for the whole country and is it intended that each district or county should account for the figures as well pertaining to the county. £850 does not represent anything like a fair wage. There were County Conciliation Boards before the War, but I understand now all the money goes to the pool and there is going to be one general wage for the whole country. Will there be an accountant or set of accountants for the whole country as well as for each district? I should like also to ask a question under the heading "Technical adviser." Technical adviser of what?£500 is set down for that, inclusive. Some time ago I put a question to the Minister of Mines in respect to a penny per ton in the last Mines Act for building mechanics' institutes in colliery villages. Can Id. a ton be paid by the coal trade in each respective colliery district to build mechanics' institutes where the men can meet at night? Under inspectors of horses (mines inspectorate) each horse keeper at present in a mine has 15 ponies or horses and no more. Is this inspector fully employed at £125, £140, £175 inspecting horses? Under the heading of temporary staff I find male messengers 27s. to 42s. a week and boy messengers 9s. to 15s. a week. I am glad to say we have no boy miners on any such money. My complaint, if I have any complaint at all, is that sufficient money is not spent on the salaries of inspectors. When you have 14,000 of my fellow workers killed between 1914 and 1920—I worked in a mine for 40 years before I came here—and thousands upon thousands who have met with accidents and are practically maimed for life, you cannot be too careful about protecting the men.

Mr. BETTERTON: I should like to ask with reference to the Director of Health and Safety whether my right hon. Friend can give an assurance that the gentleman who is appointed to this post has had some experience of the special dangers of mines?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already explained that this is the chief mining inspector under another name.

Mr. BETTERTON: I did not understand that. My second question is this. When the Bill was before the House a request was made to my right hon. Friend that there should be an Inspectorate of the Ministry, however small, appointed to look after the special interests of non-ferrous miners. I should like to ask whether any, and if any, how many, of the assistant under-secretaries, technical officers, staff officers and inspectors are allocated to the special duty of looking after the interests of the non-ferrous miners?

Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG: There are two points on which I should like to ask for explanation. First in connection with the financial organisation of the new Department. Since this is the occasion on which the organisation has been crystallised it is perhaps not wholly irrelevant to refer to it. In looking at the staffs provided for, I see in the first place "financial adviser, temporary." In so far as he is an adviser and not executive, that leaves something to be desired. In so far as he is temporary and not permanent, that seems to leave a good deal more to be desired. The next financial officer is an accountant. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the financial organisation is to be? In particular, who is to be the responsible officer for financial matters in the office? Who is to be the accounting officer for the Exchequer audit? Is there to be a separate financial branch distinct from the executive branch? Is there to be a financial branch or only an accounting branch? I should also like information in connection with the appropriations-in-aid, and in particular the first item, which is a sum of £53,700 from the Coal Mines (Emergency) Act Account. The Section referred to in this item is the Section which provides that there may be debited to the coal mines account such amount as may be necessary to meet the administrative expenses of the Department. There must be some obvious explanation of this item, but it is not clear to me. What is the explanation why we have taken from that account not an item of the administrative expenses of the Department, but an odd sum of £53,700?
What is it that has fixed this amount as an appropriation-in-aid to be taken from the coal mines account, and why is there not enough in the account, if that is the case, to meet the administrative expenses of the Department? It is a matter of very considerable concern, because the intention was that the Coal Mines Department should be made self-supporting, but from this Estimate it seems not to be so.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: On page 6 of the Estimate we find that there is a sum of £34,397 for war bonus. It is rather hard that people who went through the War without having any war bonus, and in the majority of cases without asking for it, should now be taxed to death in order to provide war bonus, two years after the War, for people who may or may not have taken any active part in the War. The taxpayer pays this war bonus. What is the reason for giving the war bonus? We shall be told that it is to meet the increased cost of living; but the people who pay the taxes and, consequently, are supplying this war bonus, do not in a large number of cases get any war bonus. They do not get anything to meet the increased cost of living. The people who are not fortunate enough to be employed in some Government office cannot come along and say, "My cost of living has gone up so much that I want an increase in my salary in proportion." However skilfully taxation may be designed, in the long run it falls upon the shoulders of everyone in this country, if not directly, then indirectly, and it is not fair that people should have to pay taxes to provide these gentlemen occupying Government positions with bonus. What it practically comes to in the case of a large number of these high-salaried officials, who are getting war bonus theoretically to meet the increased cost of living, is that they are getting their salaries paid free of Income Tax, while other people are confronted with taxation of something like 6s. in the £. That is an injustice. The burden of meeting the cost of the War ought to fall on all of us equally, and there ought not to be one privileged Government class who are in the position of being able to claim and get their salaries and their incomes paid free of tax.

Mr. W. SHAW: I should like to ask the Secretary of Mines if he will tell the Committee what duties are performed by
the Chief Financial Adviser, the technical advisers, and other advisers. To-day I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the number of persons appointed to purely advisory posts during the last two years, and I have just received a reply which states:
I am not aware of any appointments to salaried posts which can be correctly described as purely advisory with no other functions attached to them.
Are these advisers simply in the position of Counsel whom we consult when we are in a legal difficulty, or, if not, what duties are they performing for which we are asked to pay?

Major BARNES: Though we may criticise this Estimate, there is only one feeling towards the Minister who is in charge of it, and that is one of the most entire friendship and a desire for his success in this new Department. My hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes) has moved a. reduction of the Vote by £55,000. That may not seem very friendly towards my right hon. Friend, but the fact is that we are anxious to start him off right, and we believe that he has deviated considerably from the understanding come to in the House when the Ministry of Mines Bill was passed. We had a Debate on the Financial Resolution, a Debate in Committee and on Report. The House felt so strongly about it that it was not until after an explanation by the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Gentleman himself that they got the Vote. That Resolution appears in the Act in this form:
The expenses of the Ministry of Mines to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury shall be paid out of monies provided by Parliament, provided that the total amount of such salaries and expenses shall not in any year exceed £250,000.
That was the limit which the House was prepared to give to the Mines Department. We have now before us this Supplementary Estimate, and it is difficult to gauge the actual cost of the Department; but my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes), who is professionally an expert in these matters, is of opinion that the figure now presented, £127,000, may be taken to represent a total sum for the year of over £150,000. He also pointed out that at the time that the House agreed to this £250.000 there was distinctly held out a promise that the £250.000 should be an
inclusive sum, and that it should cover the cost of all the services which were being rendered in the various Departments in connection with the mines. I will read what my hon. Friend said on that occasion. It was on the Report stage on the 6th July—
I will ask the House to realise what Departments are to be transferred to the Ministry of Mines. In the first place there is the Coal Controller's Department.
That has been transferred.
Then there are certain sub-departments of the Home Department, one of which deals with the protection and safety of mines, and another with mining examinations.
That has been transferred. My hon. Friend further said:
There will be a sub-department of the Board of Education which deals with the geological survey.
That has been transferred.
There will be a sub-department of the Wood and Forests Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1920, col. 1387; Vol. 131.]
That has not been transferred, and my right hon. Friend agrees. That was put to the House by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. In pressing the Resolution upon the House, the President of the Board of Trade used these words, speaking on what has been transferred to the Coal Department from the Home Office:
We have arrived at the two figures of £98,000 and £75,000
Then he went on to say:
and there are, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire said, other Departments of the Government which are to be taken over and which cost a certain amount of money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1920, col. 1392; Vol. 131.]
I contend that in these words there was clearly held out to the House a promise that the Departments referred to by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire were to be taken over. They have not been taken over, and he estimates that if they are taken over the cost will be £55,000. That makes the actual figure which the Mines Department is going to cost, £255,000. Adding to that the £55,000 of my hon. Friend's estimate, the total comes to £310,000. That does not exhaust the list. The Bill clearly says that the total amount of salaries and expenses shall not in any way exceed £250,000, but there are additional sums for additional expenses in connection with the Ministry of Mines referred to in
this Paper. On page 4 of the Supplementary Estimate at the bottom there is this note:
Provision is also made as follows in other Estimates for Expenditure in connection with this Service.
It goes on to say what these provisions are. Office accommodation, inland revenue, and so on, making up a total sum of £34,550; so that what in fact is being spent on the Ministry of Mines is not £250,000 but nearer £350,000—£345,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines is really starting on his new career with an expenditure of £100,000 a year more than this House approved of. I do not know whether the Committee is going to allow this to pass. If it does so, it appears to me that all our talk about economy will be mere pretence. If, after devoting several hours on two evenings, to pinning the Government down to a limit of £250,000, we are going to allow them to ride off to the extent of £100,000, something like 40 per cent, more, I consider that all the theory that this House of Commons is any guardian of economy at all is mere pretence. The hon. Member for North-East Derby has put up a very serious case for a reply. No doubt, if any reply can be given, it will be given by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure the Committee will insist upon this matter being cleared up before it agrees to these Supplementary Estimates.
I do not want to be a merely destructive critic. We on this side of the Committee are often asked to be constructive. I want to show where the right hon. Gentleman can save some money, and bring himself more nearly within his undertaking to the House. It is not very easy, on looking at page 5, to see exactly what the amounts are for each Department. He has a Coal Controller's Department. He has a Mines Inspectorate Department, and a Mines Examination Department. So far as the Mines Inspectorate is concerned, that is pretty clear, and one may assume that the first item on the page, down to "allowances to officers loaned by other Departments," are permanent Departments dealing with the officers of the Secretary of Mines in the work of the Coal Control Department. It is not easy to get from this account the amount of money which is being expended in connection with the restrictions on the export of coal, and I wish to speak on
that matter. I have received representations to the effect that a great deal of money is being wasted by the Mines Department on premises and on staff in connection with the issuing of licences for the export of coal which might very well be saved. The method is this. In every coal export area there is a Coal and Coke Supplies Committee, formed of gentlemen interested in and connected with the mining business, who give their services without remuneration. They act very largely as agents of the Secretary of Mines in that district. The criticism which is directed to this Department is that, side by side with these committees, which are costing the country nothing, there has been set up or planted down in these areas offices and representatives of the Ministry of Mines. Some of them appear in this Report. Somebody, called the Head of the Shipping and Export Branch, gets £900 a year. On page 6 there are Export Representatives, who get from £600 to £1,000. There are five of these. There are four Deputy Export Representatives, who get from £300 to £500. It is very difficult to find out what is the total cost of this unnecessary staff dealing with the question of export licences. I asked a question in the House the other day, and I think the answer was that the cost was small, about £25,000 a year. It is not possible to disentangle that figure. Taking the figures as they appear here, it looks something like £40,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman might save on the Department, and get nearer the limits laid down by the House, if he were to do away with these branch export establishments which he has set up in different parts of the country. I understand that there is a considerable amount of confidence in the Coal and Coke Supplies Committee, and they might very well be entrusted with the duty of issuing such licences as the right hon. Gentleman feels should be issued. In each area, I understand the method is to allow them to export a certain amount of coal. I saw a notice in the Press this morning that all restrictions on prices and conditions are now removed, and the only thing now remaining to be determined is the question of quantity. For that, it does not seem to me necessary to maintain an expensive establishment. I asked in my question how many licences were issued by these bodies. The people who made representa-
tions to me were anxious to know what the country was getting for this expenditure of £20,000 or £30,000 a year. I was told then that it was not possible to give that information. I have not got it yet, but I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that in that direction at least he might find room for considerable economy. I support the Amendment, and unless the Secretary for Mines can show the House that he is really within the terms of the Financial Resolution, and that the sum expended by his Department does not exceed £250,000 a year, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall vote with him.

Colonel GRETTON: I should like to make a few remarks on the general financial statement. I do not propose to go into it in detail, but I suppose there is some reason for this confused statement which we are asked to consider. It appears to me, on the face of it, to be deliberately designed to create confusion, because I find that in the charges set out the Committee is asked to authorise in this connection a net total of £73,629. The gross total, however, is £127,554, as set out on the paper. I want to ask whether these Appropriations-in-Aid are only temporary Appropriations, or are to continue year by year in the future. The Committee ought to know to what annual expenditure it is committing itself in passing these Votes. If the Appropriations-in-Aid are to be annual Appropriations, I would ask my right hon. Friend what is the estimated amount of the Appropriations-in-aid received in the next succeeding year? Again, when we come to examine the statement with regard to £127,554, with the details on page 5, it will be seen that the amounts of salary we are asked to vote do not correspond to any fixed period. The salaries range from a period of six months down to one of three months. Such a calculation should be made for a general period which all these salaries would cover. Clearly, they are a period of less than twelve months. The average appears to be for somewhere about six months. If that is so, the total salaries, including war bonuses, which we are asked to vote is more than £255,000. My hon. Friend who spoke last called attention to the item of £34,500 which is hidden away in a note at the bottom of the page, showing charges of the Department which must be included in salaries and expenses of the
whole Department. So that the total charge apparently would be £267,000 without taking into account the sums referred to by the last hon. Gentleman. Yet on this Paper we are asked, to make a comparison between gross total of £127,000 and a gross total of £232,000 transferred services. The £232,000 is calculated on an annual basis, and what we are asked to vote to-night is calculated on a very much shorter period. I am surprised that such a statement should be laid before the Committee in such a form. I am sure that my hon. Friend has no desire to deceive anybody, yet the statement is made up in the most confused form as if it were intended that the Committee should be deliberately deceived as to the general effect of what is now proposed. What is the total annual charge on the basis of this Paper? Will this £34,500 referred to in the last note on page 4 be an annual charge? If so, it must clearly be added to the salaries and expenses, the amounts of which are set down in this Estimate. Then I would like to know if the Appropriations-in-aid are a recurring amount or are only a temporary amount?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no reason to complain of the criticism of this Estimate and I much appreciate the friendly spirit shown and kind words said regarding myself. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) has said that I would be the last person who would wish to deceive the Committee, yet apparently he thinks that I have done so in the grossest possible manner. I am afraid that he has not read the Paper quite carefully. I said in the beginning when I spoke that the Mines Department was taken for the period from the 1st of September and the Home Office from the 1st of December. Therefore there is a period of seven months for one and four months for the other, and by a simple process of arithmetic the general result can be arrived at. As regards the Coal Controller, I have already said two or three times that he left yesterday, and that the £688 which appears is the three months' salary which he got from the 1st September to the end of last month. Then as to the Appropriations-in-Aid to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, they are the payment out of the Coal Surplus Profits Fund which is charged after distribution of the pre-War profits and the
one-tenth, if there is more, with the payment of the cost of control. The figure given here for the seven months, £53,000, is seven-twelfths of what we estimate will be the annual cost attributable to coal control out of the expenses of the Mines Department. In reply to the question whether that will be permanent or not, that is entirely a question of what profits are derivable from the coal industry.
One general remark about the criticisms that have been made. The most serious ones seem to have been aimed at next year's Estimates, rather than at these. By the provisions of the Mining Industry Act the Department is not to spend in any year on salaries and expenses more than £250,000. In this particular year we are not violating that undertaking. It will be time enough when next years Estimates come to be prepared for hon. Gentlemen who say that we are going to exceed our limit to prove that we are doing so. I quite admit that it will be very difficult to keep within the limit. One of the reasons is that when that calculation was made the War bonus, as it is called, stood at a lower figure than it does now. Also a rise in the payment of inspectors was proposed subsequently to the preparation of the figures by which the President of the Board of Trade was guided when making that Estimate. Other increases are in subsistence allowances and temporary clerks. Payments have been made since that time, by direction of the Treasury, generally to all Departments, which have considerably increased the difficulty of bringing these services within the £250,000. But this will be a question for next year's Estimates rather than for this year. Now I come to some of the other criticisms that have been made. The hon. and gallant Member for the Fylde Division (Colonel Ashley) spoke of the large staff. The staff has been reduced between the 1st of April this year and the 1st of December from 828 to 376. I think one hon. Member did compliment the Department on that reduction, but he was the only one who did so. When we have this enormous reduction it seems to be a little hard to have these criticisms made. I have been asked a great many questions about the officers of the Department. First of all, I take the position of the Labour Adviser, about whom several questions have been asked, although
there has been a consensus of opinion that he was the best possible man we could have got for the job. An hon. Member asked what his exact salary is. It is £1,500 per year plus War bonus of £750, making a total of £2,250. That may seem rather high as compared with some of the other salaries, but I would remind the Committee that the other salaries of ordinary civil servants carry with them a pension. In the case of the Labour Adviser going in at the age he did it was necessary to make a special allowance to enable him to provide his own pension out of salary. Therefore there is the difference between his salary and the others that he has to provide out of it his own retiring allowance. An hon. and gallant Gentleman described him as a luxury. It is a luxury that may save a good deal of trouble and it is a luxury to have an adviser such as Mr. Brace, who is so thoroughly conversant with every aspect of the industry. Surely it must be fairly obvious, when you have a Ministry which is intended to look after the interests of something like 2,000,000 workers in the mines and connected with the industry, that a large number of labour questions will arise in which the experience of a man who has been engaged in the industry all his life will save an immense amount of time and trouble and expense to the Department that has to deal with them. I feel perfectly convinced that the value of this office to the Mines Department is justifiable in every way. I think it was the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) who said it was an unfortunate appointment because of the time at which it was made. I really think that was a very unfortunate criticism to make. If we were to have a Labour Adviser in the coal industry what other man could we have asked before the right hon. Gentleman who has now accepted the office? That right hon. Gentleman has had experience of official work. He has been Under-Secretary for Home Affairs, and was chief spokesman of the coal miners. I think anybody who had been asked would say that we could have made no other choice.
I have been asked also with regard to the salaries of some of the major officials, which were criticised on the grounds that they were too high, and as to the salaries of the lower ones, which were criticised on the grounds that they were too low.
The whole question really turns on the war bonus, as it is called, which they receive. I agree with the hon. Member for Hull (Colonel L. Ward) in thinking that "war bonus" is a very absurd name to give to this addition to their salary. It is an addition given on a scale based on the cost of living. It has nothing to do with the War, and is a cost of living bonus. It is settled by the Treasury, and has nothing to do with me. I do not fix the salaries, and that is done by a scale arranged by the Treasury. The bonus of Civil servants is as follows:—Where the ordinary rate of remuneration does not exceed 35s. per week it is 130 per cent, of the ordinary remuneration; where the ordinary rate of remuneration exceeds 35s. per week, but does not exceed £200 per year, it is 130 per cent, on the first 35s. and 60 per cent. on the amount of remuneration in excess of 35s.; where the ordinary rate of remuneration exceeds £200 per year, it is 130 per cent, on the first 35s. and 60 per cent, on the amount up to £200, and 45 per cent, on the excess of £200, with a maximum bonus of £750.

Colonel L. WARD: Is that subject to Income Tax, or classed as an allowance and free of Income Tax?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will inquire about that, as I cannot answer off-hand. Reference was made also to the remuneration of typists, and 28s. per week was referred to as very small. But the real wage in that case is 28s., plus 45s., making 73s. in all. That is a very good example of the way in which the bonus acts on the lower-paid officials.

Mr. FINNEY: Does that include charwomen?

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it includes everybody. I was also asked about the Permanent Secretary's salary, which is £1,800 plus £500 bonus, a total of £2,300. His salary before he became head of the Department was £2,150, so that he only gained by attaining the high position of head of a Department an extra £150', and I am quite certain he thoroughly deserved it. With regard to some of the observations of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, who referred to services which he thought were going to be included under the expenses of the Mines Department which had not been transferred, he was wrong about the statistical part, because that has been
transferred, but he was perfectly right about the Geological Survey and the Sub-Department of the Department of Woods and Forests, which might have been transferred. It does not rest with us alone to take over these Services, but it has to be a matter for agreement. I think there was some misapprehension when we discussed the matter on the Financial Resolution with"" regard to the Geological Survey portion of the Board of Education. I think the President did at one time suggest that it might be taken over, but it was not regarded as about to be taken over when we made the estimate of £250,000 a year.
An hon. Member spoke about area boards. Under the Act, if any of the parties render the scheme of area boards abortive by not appointing representatives on them, that part of the Act falls out. He seems to think it is in some way a fault of the Department that the area board system has not already been set up, but it has not been set up for two reasons; first of all, because the representatives of the Miners' Federation have not yet agreed to do so, and it cannot be set up without that agreement, and, secondly, because the whole question is being discussed now by a joint committee of owners' and miners' representatives in the hope of arriving at some agreement. I believe they have made a fairly good start in the way of getting a permanent settlement, and whether it takes the form under the Act or some other form, if it is a settlement satisfactory to both parties and fair to the public, I do not think anybody will mind whether it takes the form under the Act or some other shape. He asked me about export prices, but I cannot prophesy on that question. Many hon. Members have been anxious for me to go into the dangerous region of forecast, but I have not prophesied yet since I have been at the Department, and I do not intend to do so unless I have some very much better data to go on than I have at the present time. He asked me if we had done anything about setting up the Committee under Section 20. For about three months immediately after taking over this appointment we were engaged practically the whole time with the strike settlement, and it is only since that has been disposed of that we have had time to turn to some of the arrangements necessary for organising the Department and working
the Act, but I have been searching, so far without success, for a Chairman and for members of this Committee. I hope to get it appointed before the end of the year. I have already explained that the Director of Health and Safety is merely the Head Home Office Inspector under another name.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Why are there two items of £1,200 in this Estimate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I believe there are two men of the same name. The chief man is called Director of Health and Safety, and the second man is now called the Chief Inspector. Several hon. Members referred to the question of further reductions in the staff, and I desire to see such reductions, but there comes a point at which further reduction becomes impossible. We shall, however, never relax our efforts in that direction. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes) made a suggestion with regard to the expenses of our export licencing staff, which I quite agree is a very valuable suggestion, and one that wants going into. There are reasons why it may be necessary to spend rather more than we thought we should have to do on that branch, but I hope those reasons will not continue. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Betterton) asked about the non-ferrous mining section. We have not actually got a section set up confined entirely to that, but we are beginning our work on it. The hon. Member for Norwich (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young) asked about the Chief Accounting Officer? That is the permanent Under-Secretary. I think I have now answered the main questions put be me, and hope I have made clear some of the points which were not previously clear to the Committee. I shall certainly bear their criticisms in mind, and I am far from supposing that we have yet done all that is possible to make this a thoroughly efficient and economical Department. Under very trying circumstances, for there has been strike trouble going on nearly the whole time, my staff have devoted their attention to the work of starting the Department with an energy and a public spirit which deserve the highest praise.

Mr. HOLMES: I want to acknowledge the way in which the Secretary for Mines has answered a number of questions put to him by myself and other Members, but I cannot say that he has in any way satisfied me in regard to the main point of criticism. He has constantly referred to the economy which has been exercised by the Coal Controller's Department, and has told us that the staff has been reduced, but this is a sort of stage army which he is constantly bringing before the curtain. On the 5th July, when we discussed the Financial Resolution of the Ministry of Mines Bill, the President of the Board of Trade told us that some new arrangements had been made by which the cost of the Coal Controller's Department would be reduced from £500,000 to £75,000 per annum.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: But those officials that I mentioned were not engaged on that part of the work.

Mr. HOLMES: Whatever was meant, full credit was taken for economy in reducing the cost of the Coal Controller's Department from £500,000 to £75,000. Now we find that the Coal Mines Department 1920–21 is costing us at the rate of £119,000 a year, so that the reduction to £75,000 which we were promised in July has not materialised.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The £75,000 which was mentioned was calculated on the bonus of the staff at that time, without any expectation that that was going to be raised. It has since been raised, and several other salaries or payments have been raised since that time by the Treasury, and that accounts for a very large part of the difference between £75,000 and the £119,000.

Mr. HOLMES: I will accept the hon. Gentleman's statement that what was £75,000 in July is to-day actually £119,000 because of certain bonuses and other things which the Treasury have awarded.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I did not say it was all that.

Mr. HOLMES: Not all?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, there are other things; £119,000 is the amount that it would be in a year at the point we now are at. We hope that from this moment we shall be able to make very considerable reductions, if all things go well in
the coal industry, as we hope they may. Part of the increase is to be accounted for by the additional war bonuses.

Mr. HOLMES: On the 5th July the House, in its anxiety for economy, was delighted to hear that the Coal Controller's Department was to be reduced from £500,000 to £75,000. To-day, as a result of inability to reduce as anticipated, and as a result of increased war bonuses, the cost of the Coal Controller's Department is £119,000. That being so, it is really no use for the Secretary of Mines to get up and continually say in his speech, "Look how economical we are at the present time, because we have reduced the staff." He has not reduced the cost of it to the nation, but has increased it. But the real point that I make is that, on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), the President of the Board of Trade agreed that the cost of this Department should not exceed £250,000 a year. The Secretary for Mines says, "Oh, we have not come to a full year yet and therefore you ought not to bring this up against us at the moment." When he has admitted that for seven months in the case of the Coal Controller's Department and four months in the case of the Home Office they were at the rate of more than £250,000 a year, the House is surely entitled to say that he is exceeding the promise given by the President of the Board of Trade, and I do not think there is any need for those of us who criticised the Estimate on those grounds to apologise to him or the Committee for raising the point. The President of the Board of Trade said, "We are not creating a new Department. In creating this Ministry of Mines we are simply putting under one roof various sections which exist in other Government Departments," and in his speech on the Second Reading of the Ministry of Mines Bill on 30th June last he gave a list of the various Departments which were to be transferred. They were the Home Office Department, dealing with inspection and safety of mines; the Board of Trade Department, dealing with the minimum and with district boards; the Board of Education Department, dealing with the geological survey; the Department of the Commissioner of Woods and Forests, dealing with coal under Crown lands and under
sea; and there were various other bodies —I have not enumerated them all—each dealing with some aspect of the coal question. We were asked to agree to the transfer of these Government Departments to one new Department. A few nights later we had a Financial Resolution, and the President of the Board of Trade then said that the Coal Controller's Department was going to be reduced to £75,000. I will quote his words:
The £75,000 which the Coal Control Department will cost, together with the Home Office Inspection Department and the other Departments which we take over from other Ministries, will, we estimate, come to something like £250,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1920, col. 1186; Vol. 131.]
That is the figure which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green adopted in moving his Amendment. The House agreed to that £250,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman now admits that certain of these Departments have not been transferred to his Department. The Geological Section of the Board of Education, which costs £30,000 a year, has not been transferred. I think he also admits, though he did not say so in his reply, that the Department of Mineral Resources of the Board of Trade, costing £10,000 a year, has not been transferred. The Department under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, which I suggest costs £5,000, has not been transferred. Those amount to £45,000—a sum being spent by other Departments which we expected would have been transferred to this new Department. This House had been promised that not more than £250,000 should be spent on all these Departments put together. As some Departments costing £45,000 have not been transferred, the total expenditure, on the Departments which have been transferred should not exceed £205,000, that is, £250,000 less £45,000. So in my view the right hon. Gentleman should have come here to-day with an estimate for not more than £205,000 in any year. All these items are set out in the Estimate for 1920–21. They amount to £267,000, so that the Secretary for Mines is spending the full limit of money, although three Departments, which were to be transferred to him, had not been transferred. He may have carried out the letter of the Resolution to which he agreed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp-
son), but he has not carried out the spirit of them. The House expects a Minister to play the game fairly, and when he agrees to £250,000, including the expenses of certain Departments, and those Departments are not concerned, then the amount should be reduced by the annual expenditure of the Departments which are not transferred. It was for that reason I moved the Amendment for a reduction of £55,000. I do not know whether, after the explanation that £10,000 for the Statistical Department was included, I shall be in order in reducing my Amendment to £45,000.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must withdraw his Amendment, and move it in the corrected form.

Mr. HOLMES: I will do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. HOLMES: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £45,000.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I only rise for a few moment, because it was my Amendment which the Government accepted a few months ago to the Financial Resolution. The Government, as a matter of fact, were in rather a difficult position, and they were threatened, I think, with an unfavourable decision if they had actually taken a Division on their original Clause, which gave them an indefinite sum to work with. The Government accepted the figure of £250,000 a year. That was the figure beyond which they were not to go.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In any one year.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Certainly. I am very sorry I was not here to hear the statement of my right hon. Friend. I had been sitting here for five hours this afternoon, and did not come back till the right hon. Gentleman had sat down, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. S. Holmes) that not a word was given as to why this figure did not include various services which were going to be included, according to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, and also, I think, my hon. Friend, two months ago, and I still do not understand what the explanation is. It is quite clear, according to this Estimate, that the £250,000 has not been exceeded by any very large amount I
make out the exact sum for which they are asking is practically £267,000, because, really, you have got to include provision which is made in other Estimates for expenditure in connection with this service. But, allowing they are only spending £250,000 a year, that £250,000 per year, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend, does not contain four very important items which were promised by the President of the Board of Trade— the geological survey of the Board of Education—the impression left upon everyone who listened to that Debate was that that item of £30,000 was going to be included in the £250,000—the Commission of Woods and Forests—dealing with the coal in the Crown lands under the sea— £5,000; then there was the Department of National Resources £10,000, and also the Statistical Department. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said the Statistical Department £10,000 is included. I have looked very carefully through these items, and I do not see it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is here, at the bottom of the page—in the salaries.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Anyhow, we will knock out the £10,000 and that leaves £45,000. That figure has not been included in the £250,000. I therefore maintain that what was accepted by the House has been exceeded by £45,000. What is the use of this House going to the trouble of getting a promise from the Government to but down their yearly expenditure by spending a sum of not more than £250,000, when by a scheme of camouflage in not taking over a sum of £45,000 they spend more than was allowed by this House? It really is a farce. We might just as well not be here to legislate. I do not want to criticise my right hon. Friend personally. I join with other Members in saying that he always treats the House with great courtesy, but really this is a constitutional matter, and it is a perfect farce that we should sit here and accept concessions from the Government thinking we are getting a limited expenditure when there is really no such a limit.
If you take the £45,000 it is rather interesting to observe that this is really made up by increases of salaries. You have got war bonus £34,000 odd, travelling and subsistence allowance, and personal donations amounting to about £12,000, which gives £46,000. This extra
sum of money therefore which the Department has spent beyond the wish and expectation of this House is entirely due to Departmental salaries and personal donations. There are no less than 23 persons in the Department of my right hon. Friend who get £1,000 a year and over in salary. That does not include war bonus. If you take that in addition you will find nearly 30 officials in the Department getting salaries of £1,000 a year and over. That is not fair in view of the state of employment throughout the country. Why should Civil servants employed by the Government be given this wage privilege? It is extremely discouraging to other employments throughout the country. Take, for instance, young people entering the Civil Service. I understand quite young boys and girls entering at 16 and 17 get £3 a week and they get a war bonus of £153, and entering at 18 or 19 at competitive examination their salary is £100 a year, increased by war bonus to £248 or £5 a week. That is to say, the taxpayer is asked to pay all this extra money to employé Government. This kind of thing when we are supposed to be on the edge of a financial crisis is really monstrous, and we should not go on increasing salaries which are already large. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.

Mr. J. GUEST: The Secretary for Mines has been much criticised on account of his suggested expenditure and the urgency of it. I want to suggest one or two items on the short side where I think more money might be spent with benefit to the Mines Department and the State. There is provision for only one electrical inspector, and I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that the provision of one such inspector is altogether inadequate. With the growth of electrical work, and the way it has developed in mining, there is certainly a demand for a further supply of inspectors, and in this respect one will be altogether inadequate. I think there is room for the Department to be enlarged in that direction. I notice at the foot of the Inspectors List there are to be 32 sub-inspectors at salaries varying from £150 to £200 a year. In the first place, 32 sub-inspectors are altogether inadequate for such responsible work, and this number could be very well increased with advantage to the industry and with benefit
to the workmen. Not only should the number be increased, but I think the wages ought to be advanced.
The important work these men have to do, and the qualifications they will have to possess in order to carry any weight as inspectors, will not be adequately remunerated at £3 to £4 a week. Probably the Secretary for Mines will say that they will receive a substantial bonus, but the point is this salary is looked upon as being the value of their services in normal times, and you are not likely to attract men of the calibre you require as sub-inspectors by offering them £3 a week in normal times, rising to £4. The work of the mine inspectors, in the opinion of the mining community, is of the utmost importance, and if we are to have a reduction in the number of accidents in our mines, I think the number of inspectors will have to be increased, and you will have to offer such salaries as will attract the very best men you can get. There is in this Department, at all events, an inadequate provision as to numbers, and to my mind the scale, as far as the sub-inspectors are concerned, is very inadequate.

Colonel GRETTON: This Estimate apparently covers a multitude of subjects. I want to ask whether in it are included the expenditure on office accommodation and stationery, and, if not, why not? We know that our Financial Resolutions are interpreted by officials at the Treasury, but I think the House should be assured definitely and clearly that when it authorises particular payments to be made no more than those payments are included in the Estimate. I am not holding my right hon. Friend responsible for the form in which the Estimate is submitted to the House, but I do want to call attention to the unintelligent and ambiguous statement which is to be found at the bottom of page 5 of the Estimate, and I think some more clear explanation might be given. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt fully understands it himself, but he should not assume that members of the Committee equally understand it. I cannot support the Government on this occasion unless my right hon. Friend can clearly demonstrate to the House that all these charges are included in the £250,000.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is clear from the statement on page 4 of the Estimate that certain of the charges referred to by the last speaker are covered by Estimates
for other Departments, and are therefore not included in this £250,000. Indeed, it was never considered that they should be taken into account in the £250,000. In this matter we have followed the practice of other Departments. The whole thing rests with the Treasury, and it never occurred to us that we ought to include items which are usually charged on the Votes for other Ministries. I note what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Guest) said with regard to increasing the inspectorate and increasing their pay. I am afraid, in view of the criticisms I have had in the direction of economy, it is not likely I shall be able to do anything in that direction. I want to say a few words in reply to the hon. Members for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson) and North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes). A suggestion has been made that I have not played fair to the House. I resent that. I am bound by the words of the Resolution— "£250,000 in any one year." But does anybody suppose that in a year in which £550,000 had already been voted for the Coal Mines Department it would have been possible within a few days to cut the expenditure down to that extent? Was it possible to have done that at a time when a strike was going on? We have done our best to reduce the expenditure, and I have already informed the Committee that, in the matter of staff, we have reduced it from 800 odd to 300 odd. Let me take the cost of the Department at three given moments—the 1st July, the 1st September and the 1st December. On the 1st July it was at the rate of £161,000 a year; on the 1st September it was £119,000; and on the 1st December it is £112,000. We are going as fast as we can towards reducing expenditure, and I am sure that not even the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Locker-Lampson), when he made his previous speech, ever imagined that he was referring to this year. In the first place, I do not admit that these Estimates, on the average, exceed or will exceed £250,000, and in the second place, I say that it was never intended that the £250,000 should apply to anything but a full year. This is merely an estimate for the convenience of the Committee. The money has already been voted, in the Home Office Vote for those items which we have taken over from the Home Office,
and in the Board of Trade Vote for the Coal Mines Department of the Board of Trade which we took over. They were passed in the ordinary way in the Estimates for the year. This Estimate was only made up in accordance with a request asked that a separate account should be produced. It is not really a Supplementary Estimate in the proper sense of the word at all.

Major BARNES: On a point of Order. Arising out of what has been said, may I, in my ignorance as a new Member, ask what would be the effect if on these Estimates the expenditure in a full year were to exceed £250,000?

The CHAIRMAN: I have turned up the Act which was passed this year, and in Section 5 (2) it allows for certain expenses—
Provided that the total amount of such salaries, remuneration and expenses shall not in any year exceed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds.
That is the law, and therefore, unless it it is altered by an amending Act, if in any one year the Ministry exceeded that amount—not in the Estimate, but in its expenditure—I presume that the law would take its course.

Major BARNES: On that ruling, does the Act as it stands mean that in this year, which has only six months to run, the Secretary for Mines can spend his £250,000, as long as he does not exceed it? Certainly that was not at all the impression of the House when they voted £250,000; they did not think they were giving the Secretary for Mines the right to spend the whole of that.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is not a Vote of £250,000. The money was voted in the Estimates for the Board of Trade and the Home Office. The £250,000 is merely a provision of the Act; it is not a Vote of the House.

Major BARNES: I think the right hon. Gentleman is taking me up on a very technical point. The House passed a provision that a sum not exceeding £250,000 should be spent in any year, and it was certainly my impression that that was for the year, and that it was not open to the Secretary for Mines to spend that amount in a period of six months in any year. I have never heard a more amazing defence. The right hon. Gentle-
man says that, as long as he does not this year, of which six months have passed, spend more than £250,000, he is within the Act. He may be within the Act, but I certainly do not think that he is within the impression of the House after they had passed the Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke before him (Colonel Gretton) has rendered a very real service to the Committee in bringing out the point that this sum of £34,000 for charges on other Estimates was not regarded by the Mines Department as being included in the £250,000. I think the impression of the House when they voted this sum for salaries and expenses was that they were covering everything, and not that they were leaving something like 20 per cent, of the amount outside the Estimate.

Sir F. BANBURY: In answer to what the hon. Member said about inspectors, there are 32 inspectors whose salaries commence at £300 a year and go up to £450. Surely in these times £300 for an inspector is quite sufficient. We really-must not judge the salary and wages of everyone by the fortunate people who work in the mines. They are an exceptional class all to themselves, and they are getting no doubt a very much larger sum than any other person who is not fortunate enough to work in a mine can possibly hope to get. In these days of national distress, if you can get a man for £300 a year, it is not good business to give him any more, and you do not make him any better, if he is willing to come for £300, by giving him £350. You only waste the taxpayers' money.

Mr. GUEST: I made no reference to £300, but only to £250.

Sir F. BANBURY: There are 30 sub-inspectors. I should say we might have done away with the sub-inspectors altogether. 62 seems to me to be a very large number of inspectors who will probably be utterly unnecessary. I should like to say a word about what is a new feature to me, and that is the question of this £250,000. Am I to understand that my right hon. Friend's reference was that he was entitled to spend £250,000 in six months, the original Vote having been £250,000?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend is confusing two things. There was no Vote for £250,000.

Sir F. BANBURY: There was a Resolution.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, that is in the Act, and if in any one year that sum is exceeded, and unless the Act is amended, someone will be liable for a breach of the Act. But the money in this Vote is m the Home Office Vote and the Board of Trade Vote in the ordinary Estimates of last year—£550,000, I think, for the Board of Trade Coal Mines Department, and whatever it was for the Home Office. That has already been voted.

Sir F. BANBURY: What I wanted to get at was with regard to this £250,000. I think now I understand. There was in the Act a provision that in any given year a sum not exceeding £250,000 might be spent, that this given year, which terminated on 31st March, 1921, is the given year to which the Act refers, and, therefore, although it is only six months, it is the year ending 31st March, 1921. Therefore, my right hon. Friend says, in that particular year, although he has only been in existence for six months, he may spend £250,000. Is that it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No

Sir F. BANBURY: I want to assist my right hon. Friend. I do not want to vote against him if I can possibly avoid it, but I really do not know exactly where we are. I cannot quite make it out.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is very kind of my right hon. Friend to wish to assist me, and I hope he will assist me by letting us have this Vote in a few minutes. My contention was that this £250,000 limit obviously did not refer to the year of transition. We have already voted £550,000. How can we expect that to go down to under £120,000, or whatever it would be, straight away? Obviously, it did not refer to that, but to the next financial year. I do not admit, even so, that we have exceeded the average, but we are in the process of reduction. We are reducing gradually and steadily all the time. The figures were only given of what would have been the annual amount taken on 1st September this year. Since then we have gone below that.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Nobody who is intimately acquainted with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman) would desire to charge him with any attempt to mis-
lead the House. That is not in the mind of anyone. The discussion has shown how very necessary it is for the Committee to examine these Estimates with the most scrupulous care. It is now quite clear that my right hon. Friend understood that £250,000 could be spent in any given financial year, but what I understood, and what most of us understood was that the limit of £250,000 applied to the 12 months' currency of the existence of the Department. It is clear that there has been a misunderstanding. Certainly that was what most of us thought. It seems that the majority of us were wrong. There was a minority that was right. It means that in future we must be very careful to see where we stand. I hope that in this Supplementary Estimate, and in the others that will come before the House rises, that the Committee will realise its financial responsibility to the country, and will examine them with the most scrupulous care, so that, whatever we do, we shall all understand the same thing, whether we agree or disagree. I should have thought that the Department would have taken great care to cut down expenditure in view of the remarkable manifestations of a desire

on the part of the public to save all the money possible. That desire for economy was wound up by the emotional appeal of the Prime Minister last night, which we may take as real and genuine distress on his part; and in view of this I must presume that the same desire is now permeating the whole of the Departments, of which he is a distinguished head. One would have thought that this Department would have seen that the amounts, wherever possible, were cut down. There are all sorts of opportunities in this Estimate for cutting down expense.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think so. Take the case of the ridiculous staff for dealing with exports. You are going to abolish the restrictions on exports. That must have been in the mind of the Department before it was made public. Thousands of pounds could have been saved there. I shall certainly vote for the reduction which has been moved.

Question put,
That a sum, not exceeding £28,629, be granted for the said Service.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 160.

Division No. 380.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Gretton, Colonel John
Rose, Frank H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sugden, W. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hogge, James Myles
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnstone, Joseph
Waddington, R.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green);
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)



Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Morgan, Major D. Watts
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Mr. Stanley Holmes and Major


Galbraith, Samuel
Morris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Barnes.


Glanville, Harold James
Perring, William George



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Cairns, John
Fildes, Henry


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Cape, Thomas
Finney, Samuel


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Armitage, Robert
Casey, T. W.
Foreman, Henry


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Blrm., Aston)
Forestier-Walker, L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Barnett, Major R. W.
Clough, Robert
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Betterton, Henry B.
Coote, William (Tyrone. South)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Davidson, J.C.C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Gregory, Holman


Breese, Major Charles E.
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bridgeman, William Clive
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Grundy, T. W.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Edge, Captain William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bromfield, William
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Hayday, Arthur


Brown, Captain D. C.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Bruton, Sir James
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, s.)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. sir Gordon
Moles, Thomas
Sexton, James


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Hinds, John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hood, Joseph
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Morrison, Hugh
Spencer, George A.


Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Mosley, Oswald
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Nail, Major Joseph
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Neal, Arthur
Sturrock, J. Leng


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sutherland, Sir William


Irving, Dan
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Swan, J. E.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Jephcott, A. R.
Parker, James
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newlngton)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Tootill, Robert


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Vickers, Douglas


Kidd, James
Prescott, Major W. H.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Purchase, H. G.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Randies, Sir John S.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Rankin, Captain James S.
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam, Pontypridd)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Lort-Williams, J.
Remer, J. R.
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Renwick, George
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Robinson, s. (Brecon and Radnor)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rodger, A. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Mallalieu, F. W.
Royce, William Stapleton
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Manville, Edward
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Martin, Captain A. E.
Seager, Sir William



Mason, Robert
Seddon, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Question put, and agreed to.

(CLASS 2.)

MERCANTILE MARINE SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,905, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse and Harbour Authorities.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir R. Home): If the Committee desires, I will take each item by itself. The increase of £5,700 in the first item arises from the fact that the revision of the salaries disclosed a genuine right, which was agreed to by the Treasury, to an increase in the case of certain ranks of
the Service, those who perform the out door work of the Board of Trade, the marine officers who look after sailors coming on the ships, and—

It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn":

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.